Print Page | Close Window

Dingo a unique species

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: REGIONAL HISTORY
Forum Name: Australia, SE Asia & Pacific
Forum Description: Discuss the history of SE Asia: Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore etc..
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=128595
Printed Date: 21 Sep 2020 at 05:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Dingo a unique species
Posted By: Guest
Subject: Dingo a unique species
Date Posted: 02 Apr 2014 at 15:37

SYDNEY - Australia's dingo is a unique species, not a kind of wild dog as previously believed, according to a new study that definitively classifies the country's largest land predator.

The research by Australian scientists, published in the Journal of Zoology, resurrected the species name "Canis dingo", first adopted in 1793 by Friedrich Meyer, a German naturalist.

"What we've done is describe the dingo more scientifically," Mike Letnic from the University of New South Wales told Reuters.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2014/04/01/21571381.html" rel="nofollow - http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2014/04/01/21571381.html
 
So, what the experts are saying is that the Dingo, is distantly related to the East Asian domestic dogs.
 
For this to be correct, imho, the Australian Aborigines, who were part of the Out of Africa Coastal Migration, must have come into contact with the East Asian dogs somewhere in South East Asia, or in Australia.
 
The Australian Aborigines arrived in Australia somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 years ago. The East Asian dogs are estimated to have arrived in Australia some 3000 to 5000 years ago. I think this could very well change with more research.
 
It's well known that the indigenous people of what is now Indonesia and Papua New Guinea came to Australia, fishing and possibly hunting. The dogs could have been introduced by them.
 
But, in any case, the Dingo is thought to a unique species, different to any other breed of dog in the world.
 
But I'm not so sure, I've personally seen dogs in Thailand which have a very marked resemblance to Dingoes.
 
 
 



Replies:
Posted By: Windemere
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 04:46
Well, I think it's reasonable for dingos to be classified as a seperate species, Canis dingo, considering that they've been geographically separated from domestic dogs for at least 4,000 years. They were probably originally descended from domestic Southeast Asian dogs brought over by Austronesian traders. The Australian Aborigines arrived much earlier.

Dingos may have been partly responsible for the extinction of the native thylacine (marsupial  wolf) on mainland Australia, due to competition. Formerly, the thylacine had been the top tier predatory species in Australia.

It's recently been reported that feral domestic dogs are interbreeding with the wild dingos of Australia. If that continues, then their gene pool will become hybridized, and they'd no longer be a unique species. Some sort of conservation action should probably be taken to preserve the pure dingos as a distinct species.

By the way, is the plural of dingo dingos or dingoes, or is either one acceptable ?


-------------
Dis Aliter Visum
"Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."


Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 12:21
Windemere:
 
Thanks for your input.
 
I'm aware of the Australian Thylacine, which has been extinct for hundreds of years.
 
As I understand it, the Tasmanian Thylacine, or Tasmanian Tiger, was of the same genus. The last one in Tasmania is believed to have died in captivity in the 1930's.
 
Many people believe that the Tasmanian Thylacine may still exists in the Tasmanian wilds.
 
Afik, the plural of dingo is "dingos". But I doubt if anyone would argue the point either way.
 
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 14:13
The extinction of the thylacine is perhaps the greatest tragedy of modern times in the topic of species survival. A marsupial "dog" was something unique, and shouldn't have been destroyed by farmers. I hope other species like the Tasmania Devil never get extincted!

And yes, the dingo is interesting in an historical context and as an heritage of aborigines, but with the due respect, the dingo is just another dog more, isn't? 


Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 18:58
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The extinction of the thylacine is perhaps the greatest tragedy of modern times in the topic of species survival. A marsupial "dog" was something unique, and shouldn't have been destroyed by farmers. I hope other species like the Tasmania Devil never get extincted!

And yes, the dingo is interesting in an historical context and as an heritage of aborigines, but with the due respect, the dingo is just another dog more, isn't? 
 
Well, a Thylacine was not a dog. Its Latin name is Thylacinus cynocephalus.
 
It's a marsupial, which means it's young are born and raised in a pouch, much like Kangaroos and other indigenous Australian animals.
 
The only other place that the Thylacine has existed, afaik, is New Guinea, where it's also extinct.
 
British settlers placed a bounty on the Thylacine because it killed their sheep.
 
Yes, a great pity indeed.
 
 
 


Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 20:02
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

And yes, the dingo is interesting in an historical context and as an heritage of aborigines, but with the due respect, the dingo is just another dog more, isn't? 
 
 
The Australian Aborigines had/have domesticated dogs, but I'm not sure if, before white settlement, they were dingos or not, I suppose they had to be.
 
The Aborigines snuggled up with their dogs of a night to keep warm, hence the term "three dog night", meaning a cold night. Bear in mind that the Aborigines never developed houses or huts of any kind, only a lean to made from tree branches.
 
 
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 02:30
Perhaps houses weren't necessary in early Australia. As far as I know, the largest structures build by  the Aborigines, and revealed by archaeology, were fishing dams.


Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 12:44
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Perhaps houses weren't necessary in early Australia. As far as I know, the largest structures build by  the Aborigines, and revealed by archaeology, were fishing dams.
 
 
As you know, the majority of the Australian mainland, towards the centre of the country, is desert, and it gets bloody cold in the desert at night.
 
I would think that the main reason they didn't build houses of any kind was because they were nomadic hunter/gatherers, even the coastal dwellers.
 
I think you're right about the dams.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 13:52
I am interested in the contrast in development of Aborigines and Guineans (natives of New Guinea), that as far as I know are part of the same migration that finally colonized Australia. For instance, in New Guinea natives had boats, houses, developed agriculture and even build towers (they invented bungee jumping). How happened that these two related groups developed in different directions? I believe the only difference was environment. Australia was a very difficult place to develop an indigenous civilization.
In places like South America, for instance, you can see peoples of the Amazons, and particularly from Patagonia, had very simple cultures, but in the Andes they developed civilizations. Why? Environment once again.



Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 17:51
Pinguin:
 I think it may be appropriate to start a new thread on this topic, so I have moved to Australian History. Is that OK?
 
Ian


Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 18:43
In any case, the Dingo is not the only unique specimen in Australia.
 
The Australian species hominus australianus modernus male is also unique species.   Wink
 
 
 
 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net