The Taxonomic Status of Wild Canis in Arkansas

Gipson, Philip S., John A. Sealander (Department of Zoology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville) and James E. Dunn (Department of Mathematics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville) 1974. The Taxonomic Status of Wild Canis in Arkansas. Syst. Zool. 23:1-11.Skulls from 284 wild canids collected in Arkansas from July, 1968 through March, 1971 approximately one year old or older and of known sex and capture locality were analyzed taxonomically. Each skull was compared to six target populations of skulls from known canids (coyotes, coyote x dog hybrids, dogs, red wolves, northeastern forest gray wolves, and plains gray wolves) for identification. The 165 male unknowns were identified as: coyote, 117; coyote x dog intermediate, 26; dog, 3; red wolf, 2; coyote X red wolf intermediate, 16; dog X red wolf intermediate, 1. The 119 female unknowns were identified as: coyote, 91; coyote X dog intermediate, 12; dog, 5; coyote X red wolf intermediate, 11. Coyotes occur in all counties of the state and are the predominant wild canid in most areas. Local pockets of coyote x dog intermediates are randomly distributed but fairly common. Wild dogs have become established in some areas, especially in east-central Arkansas. A strong red wolf influence still exists in the canid population on the Gulf Coastal Plain of southern Arkansas. Occasional pockets of red wolf influence are found in the Ouachita and Ozark Mountains and Delta. [Canis; hybridization.] Three species of the genus Canis, coyotes (C. latrans), gray wolves (C. lupus), and dogs (C. familiaris), are generally recognized in North America. The taxonomic status of a fourth canid, the red wolf (C. rufus) has been debated for about 10 years. Pimlott and Joslin (1968) and Nowak (1970) have reviewed the taxonomic arguments. Recently Lawrence and Bossert (1967:230) concluded that ". . . from central Louisiana east to Florida the large canids hitherto called C. niger [now rufus] and niger gregoryi are no more than subspecifically distinct from Canis lupus." Paradiso (1968: 529) stated that massive hybridization was possibly occurring between red wolves and coyotes in eastern Texas. According to him: "Possibly this interbreeding should be regarded merely as intergradation, which would imply only subspecific differentiation of red wolf and coyote." Subsequently Atkins and Dillon (1971:104) presented evidence based on morphology of the brain which they feel ". . . firmly supports the recognition of C. rufus as a distinct species." Paradiso and Nowak (1972) wrote that C. 1 Programs used in this analysis are available for loan on request. rufus is a valid species, and summarized characters which distinguish C. rufus from C. latrans and C. lupus. Increasing numbers of wild canids that cannot be positively identified as coyote, wolf or dog are being taken in areas formerly occupied by wolves and recently invaded by coyotes (McCarley, 1962; Lawrence and Bossert 1967, 1969; Paradiso, 1968; Silver and Silver, 1969; Nowak, 1970; Standfield, 1970; Kolenosky, 1971). Hybridization has usually been suggested as the factor responsible for this breakdown of species identity (McCarley, 1962; Standfield, 1970). Considerable confusion has resulted since it is often desirable to assign species names to individuals from such areas. The problem is most acute in the former range of the red wolf, C. rufus, in the south-central United States where wuild canids with characteristics ranging frc typical coyote to red wolf and dog havt been taken. Our first objective was to identify with respect to species wild canids captured in Arkansas from July, 1968, through March, 1971. Since coyotes, dogs, red wolves, northeastern forest gray wolves, and plains gray wolves occurred in or adjacent to