Talk:Dog

Should we return to using Canis lupus familiaris first and foremost?

Neglecting to use Canis lupus familiaris in the infobox and overall mentioning Canis familiaris in the header section is problematic. The current scientific standing is that the domesticated dog is not a separate species from that of the wolf. There is a growing progressive group that advocates for the Canis familiaris name, but as of now major taxonomical sources such as the ITIS,NCBI and Mammal Species of the World still classify it as a subspecies. The sites list as follows;

On ITIS the Canis familiaris page says "Valid name: Canis lupus familiaris" and "Taxonomic standing:invalid original name/combination" with the Canis lupus familiaris page listing Canis familiaris as a synonym.

On NCBI it says Canis lupus familiaris is the current name and Canis familiaris a heterotypic synonym.

In addition to this I picked some other sources such as the Finnish Species Database (Laji.fi), maintained largely by the Finnish Museum of Natural History and connected to the University of Helsinki, and the NHS to reinforce this.

Canis familiaris is therefore accepted as a synonym even by distinguished sources, but it is not in scientific mainstream use. There simply isn't enough evidence to proof it is a new species. The domesticated dog still retains the ability to breed with it's wild counterparts and produce fertile offspring. Morphological variation is a block with some particular breeds, but even then genetic deviation is not noted as too extensive.

Therefore I believe it is not wise for Wikipedia to attempt to diverge from the scientific standing on this matter untill atleast one of these major publications stands with Canis familiaris as the primary name instead of synonym (as such for example ITIS and . Only at that point should the two enjoy equality. We cannot put in the infobox information that is against the scientific consensus, especially when it points to classifying something as a new species.

I propose that;

1.Canis familiaris is removed from the header (or atleast a disclaimer of dispute added) and infobox.

2.Canis lupus familiaris is returned to the infobox

3.Canis familiaris is brought up in a taxonomy related subsection or a subsection of it's own.

Requesting comments on the proposal.

Finfixer (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I rebut the commentary above. The latest genetic research shows a) the grey wolf that we know today is NOT the ancestor of the dog - the dog emerged from a different genetic population of wolves during the Last Glacial Maximum but they do share a common ancestor - please refer to the article Domestication of the dog, and b) recent taxonomic authorities favour C. familiaris and nobody has rebutted those taxonomic authorities, regardless of what some dated texts and databases based on those texts have stated. ~2025-33586-84 (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Dogs are a subspecies of Wolves.^[1][2] And in the Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia, C. l. familiaris is placed in the infobox as subspecies, while C. lupus is the species.

So I suggest we:

1. Do the same as Wikipedia in other languages.

2. Do not remove C. l. familiaris, because it is the correct scientific name. Charles Dong (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I have done a bold edit. Please let me know if you have any disagreement :) Charles Dong (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Chardon55 A couple of notes: First, the infobox is still citing the old paper by Carl Linnaeus who classified dogs as "Canis familiaris". That inline citation should be replaced by whichever of the sources you've checked that seems most reliable and up-to-date. Second, right now the alternative classification Canis familiaris is mentioned under Dog § Taxonomy (which is correct) but not in the lead. If there are scientific papers still using the alternative classification it should be in the lead somewhere even if it's not the name used in the infobox. And also, thanks for doing the research, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reminder. I just updated the source of the name. Charles Dong (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

We try to have a consistent taxonomy. For mammals, we do our best to align with what the American Society of Mammalogists list in their Mammal Diversity Database, found at this location. Their entry for the Domestic Dog has it as Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758. We should not care what other language Wikipedias do. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we can't choose one source to try and align with when multiple sources of equal status exist. One such source is the ITIS that relies on the newer Canis lupus familiaris. We must remember that Linnaeus is indeed as a source over 200 years old. If a modern challenge to it is being accepted by primary authorities like the ITIS and secondary authorities like the NBC, the strenght of Linnaeus as a source here is greatly weakened.

A new source overpowers an old source if the new source is of better quality. Considering what Linnaeus had in terms of available scientific research methods, we can propably say the new source has more quality.

That is why I think the header can retain both Canis lupus familiaris and Canis familiaris, but the infobox should have Canis lupus familiaris. It has as a classification more recent scientific backing which gives it an edge. Finfixer (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, we do try to align with one specific taxonomy, for how the articles are named (when using the scientific name), for how the taxoboxes are organized, etc. Discrepancies and disagreements between various taxonomies are then handled best in the article text. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Further, when there's a consensus to change that alignment, that can be done, and has been done in the past. Mammal taxonomy on Wikipedia originally aligned with MSW2, then MSW3. MSW4 was abandoned and replaced by ASM's MDD, which is what we follow now. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I see that. But if we were to retain Canis familiaris, we would conflict with the artile on the Grey Wolf that states the dog is one of it's subspecies. How do we reconcile that? Internal consistancy is also important. The article puts a link to this article when it talks about subspecies only for this article to say it is not a subspecies. We should hold a separate Rfc in that article if we are to use Canis familiaris here to resolve the conflict. Then we should go through any other articles that discuss canine taxonomy and may list the dog as a subspecies. If we go with Canis familiaris this article is the odd one out and contradicts other articles and their chosen reading of taxonomy. That shouldn't be happening on Wikipedia, should it? Finfixer (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The etymology of the word dog is a curiosity and may warrant its own section. It came out of nowhere in late Old English to replace the original term "hund" (hound). It appears to be an original creation of English with no known prior cognates in any other language. Etymonline describes it as "one of the great mysteries of English etymology". Somarain (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Somarain, belatedly following up: do you have any sources to suggest for this? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Check out the wiktionary entry. It has plenty of them:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dog#English Somarain (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to access the sources soon. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could I please edit wikipedia Adolf hillter (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nubzor [T][C] 16:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, I was using dark mode and saw that the photo on the African Wolf isn't transparent and remained white. Idk what else to put here, can you change it to a transparent image, please? I'll also link a transparent version at the same resolution. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:African_Golden_Wolf.png I uploaded this 5 minutes ago, I'm sorry if I made a mistake. Good day! ReddishGaming (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, and thank you for the version with a transparent background. However, rather than uploading it as a new file, you should upload it as a new version of the existing file, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dogs,_jackals,_wolves,_and_foxes_(Plate_XI).jpg. This has two advantages. One, the trademark attributions, version history, and other important metadata remain intact. Two, all articles that use this image - not just Dog - will benefit, without anyone having to edit those articles. You will need to convert from PNG to JPG to do this, however. Once you have uploaded it as a new version of the existing file, please delete (or if you cannot, request deletion of) the file you just added. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You need autoconfirmed on Commons to do that. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Good point. I would upload as a new version on behalf of the user, but the new file is broken when I try to view it. Anyone else having better luck? Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: everyone please remember to set requests to answered if they have been. I don't see a clear request here anyways, so I will do it now Slomo666 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The dog is not a descendant of the grey wolf. Rather, they are both descendants of the a common ancestor. ~2025-33474-98 (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide a WP:SOURCE that says domestic dogs are not descendants of the grey wolf despite the fact that it's been documented that domestic dogs are descended from populations of grey wolves? I mean, your claim is void if you can be bothered to understand that the latest common ancestor of domestic dogs and modern grey wolves are Early to Middle Holocene grey wolves, of which there are no appreciable differences between them and modern grey wolves. Mr Fink (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The Bonn–Oberkassel dog is Pleistocene. Also, "Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs"(Freedman et al., 2014) suggests that dogs may have evolved from an extinct Late Pleistocene wolf. This statement along with this particular citation is part of the Wikipedia article for the Wolf.

In the future please refrain from personal attacks. "If you can be bothered" is not professional language. ~2025-33474-98 (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

In the future, perhaps you could provide the necessary sources to begin with so I or others won't automatically make mistaken assumptions. Mr Fink (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

so are we going to update this? it is contradicted by first paragraph of Domestication of the dog Nondualduelist (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nondualduelist, thoughts? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay I've been doing some more reading, and despite the tone of Mr Fink I think the thrust of what they are saying is correct. Late Pleistocene wolf is a kind of gray wolf. In the same way a Beringian Wolf is a kind of gray wolf.

I think the most accurate language would be something like "Dogs were domesticated from an extinct Late Pleistocene population of gray wolves, not from modern gray wolves." Though to be honest I am not sure how meaningful a distinction this even is. Nondualduelist (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the current lead as even contradicting this idea. Context can be given in the body section on this aspect if it's not already clear. To decide on the binomial nomenclature in the infobox, we should just check what is most common in scientific literature from this past decade where more evidence is available to determine taxonomy. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Featured article request ~2025-34939-89 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I removed dogs smell better than humans. . Humans detect some odors better than dogs Smithsonian magazine article. NE Ent 14:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You should read the article. GMG^talk 00:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that says the dog's smell is superior? NE Ent 17:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

"While not quite as effective as hounds, humans can follow a scent trail." GMG^talk 18:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

This might be me being stupid, but is there a reason why I am not seeing info on why dogs always seem to be smelling each others buts? Lemur3215 (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Seee the article on Dog communication Mediatech492 (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Cat#It_vs_They Cinaroot  💬 06:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure the montage is working. Dogs are man's best friend and readers expect an image of a familiar face when they first click on this article, not a cluttered spectacle. Imagine if our own species article had a montage of a bunch of different people from different geographic areas. We have a whole article to show that. LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Laika was not one of the first animals to be launched into orbit. She was one of the first animals to be launched into space, or she as the first animals to be launched into orbit. ~2025-36388-15 (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

on the one hand, they have evolved to thrive on a starch-rich diet, on the other hand, they have evolved for the consumption of meat. Seems to me to be slightly contradictory ~2025-36388-15 (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Let's see, it says the teeth have evolved for the consumption of flesh; on the other hand, they've adapted to a starch-rich diet. I don't see any contradiction; domestic dogs are omnivores (as opposed to, say, cats, that are obligate carnivores.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)