Canis lupus Linnaeus 1758

Canis lupus Linnaeus 1758, Syst. Nat., 10th ed., Vol. 1: 39.

Type Locality: "Europæ sylvis, etjam frigidioribus", restricted by Thomas (1911 a) to " Sweden ".

Vernacular Names: Wolf.

Subspecies::

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. lupus Linnaeus 1758

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. albus Kerr 1792

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. alces Goldman 1941

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. arabs Pocock 1934

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. arctos Pocock 1935

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. baileyi Nelson and Goldman 1929

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. beothucus G. M. Allen and Barbour 1937

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. bernardi Anderson 1943

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. campestris Dwigubski 1804

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. chanco Gray 1863

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. columbianus Goldman 1941

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. crassodon Hall 1932

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. dingo Meyer 1793

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. familiaris Linnaeus 1758

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. floridanus Miller 1912

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. fuscus Richardson 1839

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. gregoryi Goldman 1937

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. griseoalbus Baird 1858

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. hattai Kishida 1931

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. hodophilax Temminck 1839

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. hudsonicus Goldman 1941

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. irremotus Goldman 1937

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. labradorius Goldman 1937

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. ligoni Goldman 1937

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. lycaon Schreber 1775

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. mackenzii Anderson 1943

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. manningi Anderson 1943

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. mogollonensis Goldman 1937

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. monstrabilis Goldman 1937

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. nubilus Say 1823

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. occidentalis Richardson 1829

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. orion Pocock 1935

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. pallipes Sykes 1831

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. pambasileus Elliot 1905

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. rufus Audubon and Bachman 1851

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. tundrarum Miller 1912

Subspecies Canis lupus subsp. youngi Goldman 1937

Distribution: Throughout the N hemisphere: North America south to 20°N in Oaxaca (Mexico); Europe; Asia, including the Arabian Peninsula and Japan, excluding Indochina and S India. Extirpated from most of the continental USA, Europe, and SE China and Indochina (Ginsburg and Macdonald, 1990). Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Egypt (?), Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Greenland, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon (?), Lithuania, Macedonia, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudia Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, USA (see status below), Uzbekistan.

Conservation: CITES – Appendix I (Indian, Pakistan, Bhutan, and Nepal populations); otherwise Appendix II. U.S. ESA – as C. lupus varies by population: 1) Endangered in Southwestern Distinct Population Segment – Mexico and USA (AZ, NM, CO south of Interstate Highway 70, UT south of U.S. Highway 50, OK and TX, except those parts of OK and TX east of Interstate Highway 35; except where listed as an experimental population); 2) Threatened in Western Distinct Population Segment – USA (CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, WY, UT north of U.S. Highway 50, and CO north of Interstate Highway 70, except where listed as an experimental population); 3) Threatened in Eastern Distinct Population Segment – USA (CT, IA, IL, IN, KS, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, SD, VT, and WI); 4) Experimental populations in portions of USA (WY and portions of ID and MT; portions of AZ, NM, and TX); otherwise, U.S. ESA – Delisted Taxa in USA (Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, parts of Oklahoma and Texas east of Interstate Highway 35; delisting of all other lower 48 states or portions of lower 48 states not otherwise included in the 3 distinct population segments). U.S. ESA – as C. rufus Endangered in entire range except in portions of NC and TN (USA), where listed as experimental populations. IUCN – Lower Risk (lc), except for Mexican subpopulation, which is Extinct in the Wild, Italian subpopulation, which is Vulnerable, Spanish-Portuguese subpopulation, which is Lower Risk (cd), and as Canis rufus, which is Critically Endangered.

Discussion: Reviewed by Mech, 1974. Opinion 2027 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (March, 2003 a) ruled that lupus is not invalid by virtue of being pre-dated by a name based on a domestic form. Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms. Corbet and Hill (1992) suggested treating the domestic dog as a separate species in SE Asia. Synonyms allocated according to Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951), Mech (1974), and Hall (1981). Provisionally includes rufus, (recognized by Paradiso, 1968; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Atkins and Dillion, 1971; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Nowak, 1979, 1992, 2002) although this problematic group (rufus, floridanus, gregoryi) should probably be best listed as incertae sedis. The widely used name C. niger is invalid (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1957 a). The validity of rufus as a full species was questioned by Clutton-Brock et al. (1976), and Lawrence and Bossert (1967, 1975), due to the existence of natural hybrids with lupus and latrans. Natural hybridization may be a consequence of habitat disruption by man (Paradiso and Nowak, 1972, 2002). All specimens examined by Wayne and Jenks (1991) had either a lupus or latrans mtDNA genotype and there appears to be a growing consensus that all historical specimens are a product of hybridization (Nowak, 2002; Reich et al., 1999; Roy et al., 1994, 1996; Wayne et al., 1992, 1998). Hybridization between wolf and coyote has long been recognized (Nowak, 2002). Two recent studies make the strongest case for separation. Wilson et al. (2000) argued for separation of the Eastern Canadian Wolf (as Canis lycaon) and the Red Wolf (as Canis rufus) as separate species based on mtDNA, but see Nowak (2002) who could not find support for this in a morphometric study. Nowak (2002) in an extensive analysis of tooth morphology concluded that there was a distinct population intermediate between traditionally recognized wolves and coyotes, which warranted full species recognition (C. rufus). The red wolf is here considered a hybrid after Wayne and Jenks (1991), Wayne (1992, 1995), and Wayne et al. (1992). Although hybrids are not normally recognized as subspecies, I have chosen as a compromise to retain rufus because of its uncertain status. Also see Roy et al. (1994, 1996), Vilá et al. (1999), and Nowak (2002) who provided an excellent review of the situation.