why are dogs and wolves considered relateted but still differerent species?
924637
According to Wikipedia, your hypothesis is wrong. Wolves ARE considered the progenators of domestic dogs...\n\nWolf\nThough due to behavioral and other factors the two species are now effectively isolated reproductively from one another, in genetic terms dogs are essentially Grey Wolves (Canis lupus), and the wide variation in their adult morphology likely results from simple changes in developmental rates and timing.[2]\n\nThe assessment that the wolf is the progenitor of the dog is a working hypothesis that currently is supported by several lines of independent evidence: behaviour, morphology and genetics. The parallel conclusions of these investigations strongly suggest, given current knowledge and understanding of evolutionary process, that the wolf is the domestic dog's most recent ancestor.[3] The earliest proven association between the two species is from the Natufian burial at Ein Mallaha in Israel. At Ein Mallaha, a 12,000 year old site, a burial was found of an old woman with a puppy held in her left hand. The next appearance of the domestication of the dog is from 8.5-9,000 years ago with the Zarzian culture of the Zagros Mountains, in Iraq.[citation needed] The Mesolithic Star Carr settlement in Yorkshire shows dogs were widely present part of their culture.
132954
Is this a serious question?  Did it ever occur to you that the biology of a dog is just a wee bit different than that of a human?
619140
There is no reason for natural selection for most traits that differentiate most dog breeds. They have been bred. This is human selection, not natural selection. The breeder decides what traits he likes and controls the matings to favor this trait.
12648
I don't believe this is possible. If I remember correctly from my undergraduate education, the big cats (Lions, Tigers, Leapards, etc.) are actually more closly related to domistaced dogs than domesticated cats. Of course we know that cats and dogs can't mate, so I'm sure the big cats couldnt' mate with their smaller cousins.
270479
Ignoring the fact that both domestic dogs and wolves are Canis Familiaris, speciation does not imply extinction of the ancestral species. In parapatric speciation, a group of members of a population enter a new niche without leaving the territory of the ancestral population, and are reproductively isolated over time as a result.\n\nHowever, dogs and wolves have not yet speciated; they can still breed and produce fertile offspring, which is usually the demarcation criteria for animal species (see: biological species concept). However, there are good odds that they could become reproductively isolated in the relatively near future; for example, consider the difficulty of a chihuahua and a wolf attempting to breed. This is known as a prezygotic barrier, and could result in reproductive isolation, or something akin to a ring species (although such are typically a result of geographic isolation).\n\nIndeed, the diversity of canis familiaris is strong evidence for just how much diversity can be produced from a common ancestor (in only ~50,000 years, no less!).
1123043
Yes...however, the human race is one of the few species on the planet that kills one another for conflict not just for survival. In most cases when animals confront eachother it is very rare that one of the animals is killed, let alone seriously injured.
602080
I'm a weredog.\n\nI met a werewolf once.\n\nMost of what we think about werewolves was invented by Hollywood. The ancient myths involved people donning skins, invoking the spirit of the wolf, and losing their humanity. There's a woman called Lupa who lives in a national park and becomes a wolf nightly. I met her, and I saw her lose herself to the spirit of the wolf\n\nI had just gone through a shamanic ritual to find and merge with my spirit animal, and my animal recognized her animal as being the same breed, but best to be wary of.\n\nShe was naked except for the wolf skin, and her body was amazingly toned, like a wolf. Her face showed more years than her age. She had a Ferrel quality to her. She could speak, but I she rarely spoke, or had anything to do with people, except to dance in her wolf skin around the fire, and then go off to whatever\n\nThere are still many times when I feel the spirit of the dog within me, although I don't think that I would ever wear dog skin. Maybe a furry, but that's a completely different thing.
143323
I am going to guess that you are referring to the reintroduced wolves that have been placed in Yellowstone in the past decade.\n\nMost of the wolves came from Canada with a few orphans from northwestern Montana.
15069
In addition to the answer that Sherasi gave, this web site contains information on a few other types of wolves around the globe.\n\nhttp://www.cosmosmith.com/wolfpage.html
659979
Wolves are about the same size as large dogs.  A five inch canine would be hard for a canine this size to conceal in his mouth.  \n\nFrom what I've seen on mounted specimens:  less than 2 inches.
10054
A wolf is a canine (related to dogs.) A wolverine is a mustelid (related to weasels.)
246903
Different systematicists have categorized the red panda (Ailurus fulgens) in a number of different ways.  Originally, they were placed in the Family Procyonidae - due to morphological similarities between the red panda and the raccoons.  Although raccoons are restricted to North and South America, and the red panda is strictly Asian in distribution.\n\nSometime in the late 80's/early 90's, genetic work done with giant pandas, red pandas, bears and raccoons suggested that red pandas and giant pandas were definitely related, giant pandas were somewhat genetically similar to bears, and the other relationships were unclear or even contradictory.  Based on these findings, some workers put both panda species into the Family Ursidae.  Some put them in their own seperate family, the Ailuropodidae.  Others put the red panda into the Procyonidae, and the giant panda into the Ursidae, and tried to figure out what that meant when the two (obviously) closely related pandas were put into separate families.\n\nMore recently, more work has been done resolving these similarities and differences, and red pandas have been broken out into their own Family, the Ailuridae.  Some put the giant pandas into that family as well, some keep the giant pandas in Ailuropodidae, and some put the giant pandas in Ursidae.\n\nSee?  Clear as mud.
28726
Yes, they certainly can.  It doesn't usually happen but they would produce healthy offspring.  The resultant animal is called a wolf-dog.\n\nThere is very little genetic difference between any dog and any wolf, coyote, or jackal, etc., so little, in fact, that genetic tests cannot tell how much wolf is in deliberately bred wolf-dogs. The domesticated canines and their wild cousins CAN interbreed. However, pedigrees on Malamutes and Siberians are available back ~20 generations (to the early 1930s at least) and these dogs are not wolf crosses -- Malamutes are Malamutes, Siberians are Siberians.
580432
The problem that creations have with evolution is that they think of evolution as a ladder. You need to view it as a tree, each branch as smaller branches that are similar.\nFor example dogs and wolves are very similar. \nLions, tigers, and house cats are similar.\nall animals come from a single organism.\n\nDidn't you learn this in biology class???
1079080
no they are a different species
723115
Hmmm...looks like the site given by the person above me confirms that they did. There are other species of canines, but all *dogs* evolved from wolves.
970510
They are distantly related.\n\nThey share the same taxonomic clade:\nKingdom (Animalia), phylum (chordata), subphylum (vertabrata), class (mammalia), order (Carnivora) but it ends there, cats go on to have the family Felidae and bears the family Ursidae\n\nAfter family there is still the clades genus and species.\n\nHumans spilt from bears and cats at the order level.\n\nA cat is just as related to a bear as it is a dog, a seal or a raccoon.