Canis rufus Audubon &amp; Bachman 1851
Creators: name: Wilson, Don E.
name: Mittermeier, Russell A.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2009
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Carnivora
Canidae
Canis
Canis rufus

description: 2. Red Wolf Canis rufus French: Loup roux / German: Rotwolf / Spanish: Lobo rojo Taxonomy. Canis rufus Audubon &amp; Bachman, 1851, Texas, USA. The taxonomic status of the Red Wolf has been debated widely. Recent genetic and morphological evidence suggests the Red Wolf is a unique taxon, and not a hybrid of Gray Wolf and Coyote, as previously suggested. Three subspecies were initially recognized: rufus (Audubon &amp; Bachman, 1851), gregory: (Goldman, 1937), and floridanus (Miller, 1912), of which only one, gregoryi, 1s believed to have survived. Genetic methodologies have not been applied to sub-specific designation, and current disagreement about the relatedness of wolves in eastern North America, if resolved, may alter currently accepted subspecific classification of C. rufus. Distribution. Red Wolves exist only as a reintroduced population in E North Carolina, USA. Descriptive notes. Head-body 104-125 cm for males and 99-120- 1 cm for females, tail 33-46 cm for males and 29- 5-44 cm for females; weight 22-34- 1 kg for males and 20-1-29- 7 kg for females. Generally appears long-legged and rangy with proportionately large ears. Intermediate in size between the Coyote and the Gray Wolf. The Red Wolf's almond-shaped eyes, broad muzzle, and wide nose pad contribute to its wolf-like appearance. The muzzle tends to be very pale in color with an area of white around the lips extending up the sides of the muzzle. Coloration is typically brownish or cinnamon with gray and black shading on the back and tail. A black phase occurred historically butis probably extinct. The dental formulais13/3,C1/1,PM 4/4, M 2/3 = 42. Habitat. Very little is known about Red Wolf habitat because the species’ range was severely reduced by the time scientific investigations began. Given their wide historical distribution, Red Wolves probably utilized a large suite of habitat types at one time. The last naturally occurring population utilized the coastal prairie marshes of south-western Louisiana and south-eastern Texas. However, many agree that this environment probably does not typify preferred Red Wolf habitat. There is evidence that the species was found in highest numbers in the once extensive bottomland river forests and swamps of the South-east. Red wolves reintroduced into North Carolina, and their descendants, have made extensive use of habitat types ranging from agricultural lands to pocosins, which are forest/wetland mosaics with an understory of evergreen shrubs. This suggests that Red Wolves are habitat generalists and can thrive in most settings where prey populations are adequate and persecution by humans is slight. This generalization is supported by one study in which low human density, wetland soil type, and distance from roads were the most important predictors of potential wolf habitat in North Carolina. Food and Feeding. Mammals such as Coypu (Myocastor coypus), rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.), and rodents (Sigmodon hispidus, Oryzomys palustris, Ondatra zibethicus) are common in south-eastern Texas and appear to have been the primary prey of Red Wolves historically. Presently in North Carolina, White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Northern Raccoons, and rabbits are the primary prey species for the reintroduced population (86% of the diet). While it is not uncommon for Red Wolves to forage individually, there is also evidence of group hunting by pack members. Also, resource partitioning among members of a pack sometimes occurs. In one study of pack feeding, rodents were consumed more by juveniles than adults, and use of rodents diminished as the young wolves matured. Activity patterns. Mostly nocturnal with crepuscular peaks of activity. Hunting usually occurs at night or at dawn and dusk. Movements, Home range and Social organization. Red Wolves normally live in extended family units or packs, typically including a dominant breeding pair and their offspring from previous years. Dispersal of offspring tends to occur before individuals reach two years of age. Group size in the reintroduced population ranges from a single breeding pair to twelve individuals. Red Wolves are territorial, and like other canids, appear to scent-mark boundaries to exclude non-group members from their territory. Home range size (46-226 km?) varies with habitat availability. Breeding. Red Wolves typically reach sexual maturity by 22 months of age, though breeding at ten months may occur. Mating usually takes place between February and March, gestation lasting 61-63 days. Peak whelping dates occur from mid-April to mid-May, producing litters of 1-10 pups. In a given year, a dominant pair produces one litter per pack. During the denning season, pregnant females may establish several dens. Some dens are shallow surface depressions located in dense vegetation for shelter at locations where the water table is high; other dens are deep burrows, often in windrows between agricultural fields or in canal banks. Dens have also been found in the hollowed out bases of large trees. Pups are often moved from one den to another before leaving the den altogether, and den attendance by male and female yearlings and adult pack members is common. Status and Conservation. CITES notlisted. Classified as Critically Endangered on The IUCN Red List. Extinct in the Wild by 1980, the Red Wolf was reintroduced by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 1987 into eastern North Carolina. The Red Wolf is now common within the reintroduction area of roughly 6000 km *. However, the species’ abundance outside this area is unknown. Hybridization with Coyotes or Red Wolf/ Coyote hybrids is the primary threat to the species’ persistence in the wild. While hybridization with Coyotes was a factor in the Red Wolf's initial demise in the wild, it was not detected as a problem in North Carolina until approximately 1992. Indeed, the region was determined to be ideal for Red Wolf reintroductions because of a purported absence of Coyotes. However, during the 1990s the Coyote population apparently became well established in the area. In the absence of hybridization, recovery of the Red Wolf and subsequent removal of the species from the USA Endangered Species List is deemed possible. It is noteworthy that similar hybridization has been observed in the population of suspected Red Wolf-type wolves in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. If these wolves are ultimately shown to be Red Wolf-type wolves, this will enhance the conservation status of the species and nearly triple the known number of Red Wolf-type wolves surviving in the wild. Human-induced mortality (vehicles and gunshot) can be significant. However, the threat this represents to the population is unclear. Most vehicle deaths occurred early in the reintroduction and were likely due to naive animals. Bibliography. Carley (1975), Goldman (1937), Hahn (2002), Kelly (2000), Kelly, Beyer &amp; Phillips (2004), Kelly, Miller &amp; Seal (1999), Nowak (1979, 2002), Paradiso &amp; Nowak (1971, 1972), Parker (1986), Phillips &amp; Henry (1992), Phillips, Henry &amp; Kelly (2003), Phillips, Smith et al. (1995), Riley &amp; McBride (1972), Shaw (1975), US Fish &amp; Wildlife Service (1990), Wilson &amp; Reeder (2005).
description: Published as part of <i>Don E. Wilson &amp; Russell A. Mittermeier, 2009, Canidae, pp. 352-446 in Handbook of the Mammals of the World – Volume 1 Carnivores, Barcelona :Lynx Edicions</i> on page 415, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6331155