3 ms·

Technically not a new species, rather a new subspecies.

mhartl 11y ago
This issue is addressed in the article: Whether the coywolf actually has evolved into a distinct species is debated. Jonathan Way, who works in Massachusetts for the National Park Service, claims in a forthcoming paper that it has. He thinks its morphological and genetic divergence from its ancestors is sufficient to qualify. But many disagree. One common definition of a species is a population that will not interbreed with outsiders. Since coywolves continue to mate with dogs and wolves, the argument goes, they are therefore not a species. But, given the way coywolves came into existence, that definition would mean wolves and coyotes should not be considered different species either—and that does not even begin to address whether domestic dogs are a species, or just an aberrant form of wolf. In reality, “species” is a concept invented by human beings. And, as this argument shows, that concept is not clear-cut. What the example of the coywolf does demonstrate, though, is that evolution is not the simple process of one species branching into many that the textbooks might have you believe.
whyenot 11y ago
Technically until the "forthcoming" paper by Jonathan Way is published, and designated type specimens exist, it isn't clear what it is -- certainly not a new species or subspecies right now.
igravious 11y ago
This puzzled me as well. Do we not have a word for this? Is _subspecies_ really the word? In linguistics mutually intelligible but distinct `languages' are called dialects. Similarly is there a term for mutually interbreedable but distinct `species'?
- epochwolf 11y ago
  > Similarly is there a term for mutually interbreedable but distinct `species'? It's species or subspecies. Animal classification has always been a little bit fuzzy and has some legacy cruft laying around. Like wolves, coyotes, and dogs are distinct animals with different behaviors but are definitely capable of interbreeding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies For domestic animals, we have the noun breed, as in breed of dog.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Similarly is there a term for mutually interbreedable but distinct `species'? There's not really any objective standard to draw the line between such populations. A clear line exists between populations that cannot reproduce, and there is probably something similar for populations that can reproduce but largely make sterile offspring (Ligers, Mules).

This issue is addressed in the article: Whether the coywolf actually has evolved into a distinct species is debated. Jonathan Way, who works in Massachusetts for the National Park Service, claims in a forthcoming paper that it has. He thinks its morphological and genetic divergence from its ancestors is sufficient to qualify. But many disagree. One common definition of a species is a population that will not interbreed with outsiders. Since coywolves continue to mate with dogs and wolves, the argument goes, they are therefore not a species. But, given the way coywolves came into existence, that definition would mean wolves and coyotes should not be considered different species either—and that does not even begin to address whether domestic dogs are a species, or just an aberrant form of wolf. In reality, “species” is a concept invented by human beings. And, as this argument shows, that concept is not clear-cut. What the example of the coywolf does demonstrate, though, is that evolution is not the simple process of one species branching into many that the textbooks might have you believe.

whyenot 11y ago

Technically until the "forthcoming" paper by Jonathan Way is published, and designated type specimens exist, it isn't clear what it is -- certainly not a new species or subspecies right now.

igravious 11y ago

This puzzled me as well. Do we not have a word for this? Is _subspecies_ really the word? In linguistics mutually intelligible but distinct `languages' are called dialects. Similarly is there a term for mutually interbreedable but distinct `species'?

epochwolf 11y ago
> Similarly is there a term for mutually interbreedable but distinct `species'? It's species or subspecies. Animal classification has always been a little bit fuzzy and has some legacy cruft laying around. Like wolves, coyotes, and dogs are distinct animals with different behaviors but are definitely capable of interbreeding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies For domestic animals, we have the noun breed, as in breed of dog.
maxerickson 11y ago
Similarly is there a term for mutually interbreedable but distinct `species'? There's not really any objective standard to draw the line between such populations. A clear line exists between populations that cannot reproduce, and there is probably something similar for populations that can reproduce but largely make sterile offspring (Ligers, Mules).