# 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)

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)

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)

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)