Talk:Dog/Archive 2

message: Just a point on grammar. The intro says "Dogs were domesticated from wolves as recently as 15,000 years ago, or perhaps as early as 100,000 years ago" - 100,000 years ago is longer than 15,00 years ago! Perhaps it should read "Dogs were domesticanted form wolves as recently as 15,000 years ago, or perhaps as far back as 100,000 years..."?? Or something along those lines. As it is it doesn't quite make sense. -- jakeleonard 02:48 October 29 2006 (UTC)
This whole section needs to change. There are only 14 breeds that have ANY wolf DNA in them. 
Afghan Hound (Afghanistan) 
Akita (Japan) 
Alaskan Malamute (United States (Alaska)) 
Basenji (Congo) 
Chow Chow (China) 
Lhasa Apso (Tibet) 
Pekingese (China) 
Saluki (Egypt,Persia) 
Samoyed (Siberia) 
Shar Pei (China) 
Shiba Inu (Japan) 
Shih Tzu (China/Tibet) 
Siberian Husky (Siberia) 
Tibetian Terrier (Tibet) 
No other dog even shows a Wolf gene. Irishgt 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you quote a source for that? You seem to be suggesting that Alsatians are more distant from wolves than mankind is from grass! -- Ian Dalziel 18:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: read the article down below on Ancient breeds from 2004, it's in the wiki section on ancient breeds. Other dogs have a DNA gene pool common to other breeds which tie the canine together but only the 14 ancient breeds actually have wolf DNA. That's why there are only 14 breeds connected to the wolf. Irishgt 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That article says that those breeds have fewest genetic differences from wolves - not that only those breeds share any DNA with wolves. All living things share some DNA - and all dogs share most of their DNA with wolves. -- Ian Dalziel 06:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't believe that to be the case. The study Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog by Vila, Salvolainen, et al., conclusively proved that all dogs are DNA-descended from wolves. With mitochondrial DNA from 67 different breeds, and 160+ wolves at 27 localities, they proved that breakoff likely happened over 100,000 years ago, and the divergence is great.
Clade I included 19 of the 26 dog haplotypes. This group contained representatives of many common breeds as well as ancient breeds such as the dingo, New Guinea singing Jog, African basenji, and greyhound (14). Clade II included dog haplotype D8, from two Scandinavian breeds (elkhound and jamthund), and was closely related to two wolf haplotypes found in Italy, France, Romania, and Greece (W4 and W5). Clade III contained three dog haplotypes (D7, D19, and D21) found in a variety of breeds such as the German shepherd, Siberian husky, and Mexican hairless. Finally, clade IV contained three haplotypes (D6, D10, and D24) that were identical or very similar to a wolf haplotype (W6) found in Romania and western Russia, which suggests recent hybridization between dogs and wolves. Many breeds contained representatives of more than one dog haplotype grouping. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
CMacMillan 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The only problem with that test has to do with the same statement on the Wiki page on ancient breeds. "There is some controversy over the results of the study, as some have noted that breeding between wolves and specific breeds in recent times may have led to inaccurate results. As a result of these breedings, the offspring would have gained genetic similarities with wolves and may mask the truth about the real differences between the breed and wolves before these interbreedings."
It will take more indepth studies or purer lines in order to get correct results. I can't belive you actually put the Mexican Hairless in there. That dog has been argued to be one of the least pure dogs alive. they can't even tell where it actually came from Africa or China. And the clay statue they found that dated back 5700 years is now said to be a Chihuahua. Irishgt 20:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction Section

message: At least according to Konrad Lorenz's "Man Meets Dog", the ancestor of most modern dog breeds is actually a jackal, not a wolf. 82.139.47.117 21:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought: When we talk about dog life expectancies, are we referring to the ages at which they naturally die, or at which they are euthanized? A huge amount of domestic dogs die in this way because the treatment they require is too expensive, because their quality of life is so poor or for various other reasons. Surely this fudges the statistics we have? With wild animals we can say how long they are likely to naturally live for, but with domestic animals this isn't quite the same. The question is, how much does this bias the figures (if at all)? --StoneColdCrazy 01:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting question. I've never seen that addressed in these discussions. However, I suspect that it wouldn't bias it by too much because at least in my experience dogs aren't usually euthanized because it's inconvenient to continue their care but because it's likely at best to extend their lives by only a short amount.  Personal examples--my 17-year old husky who gradually got to the point of not being able to stand up on her own from a down, then not being able to stand even when lifted, to not being able to even roll up into a "down" when lying on her side... in the wild, she'd probably not have lasted more than 13 or 14 years (if anywhere near that) when the arthritis set in, and certainly not 17 years, and certainly if we hadn't put her to sleep then, it's not clear that she'd have lived more than a few days more.  Also my 9-year old dog dying of cancer; when he started having violent convulsions and we put him to sleep, he'd have died 4 months earlier if we hadn't treated the tumor on his heart, and even so, if he hadn't been euthanized, it appeared that the tumor had spread to his brain and it's doubtful he'd have made it more than a couple more weeks at the outside.  So, from my experience, medical care *increases* the lifespan quite a bit more than euthanasia *decreases* it.  Which still might be a bias but not in the way I think you were thinking. :-)  I would also guess, but have no proof, that when they're compiling life expectancies, they are NOT including things like the millions of pets put to sleep at animal shelters because there's no room for them. Elf | Talk 01:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I see exactly what you mean, Elf - you've hit the nail on the head when it comes to better expressing what I meant to say regarding to how we take care of our animals. I'm starting to wonder if we might have any natural statistics for the life expectancies for the domestic animals we keep. How long does a cow usually live for, a sheep, a hen? --StoneColdCrazy 03:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin... 

message: Why does "kitten" have its own article while "puppy" leads to a disambiguation which then leads to dog?  This is an outrage. :P   The_Irrelevant_One 06:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of Kittens 

message: This article says that killing dogs, even if they are on your private land, is illegal in the UK. Although I don't have the relevant statutory provision to hand, that is factually incorrect  - it is perfectly legal to kill a dog if it is worrying livestock. I am also unaware of any statutory prohibition on killing dogs, save those laws that prohibit cruelty to animals in general. Accordingly, unless someone feels different I propose removing this line.
:There is no such law.--CosmoKramer 13:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killing Dogs in the UK 

message: (moved initial Q from User talk:Elf:)
Opinion request:  I notice the dog article has a section on the ancestory of the dog as a wolf.  Do you feel it might be time to create a separate article Origins of the dog or of similiar title?  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible, as this article is certainly a long one. We'd have to come up with a good summary to leave included here.  I don't know how much more info could really be stated, though, since the domestication of the dog occurred in prehistory and even the genetic data is indefinite so far--all of which it already says here. So it might be a very short article. I could go either way.  Elf | Talk 20:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I would suggest leaving the dog article section alone, to avoid edit wars. I was in the process of cleaning up History of dog fighting breeds and noticed there is no "Dog Origin" article to link to, so I starting writing my own.  I think we need a separate article so people can discuss this topic.  My 2 cents.  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break off a dog origins article

message: We have good, genuine figures illustrating anatomy of dogs on the Slovak Wikipedia. I have also converted 2 of them so far into .svg format for easier translation. You could use them, if you are able to label it in English. Images are included in the article :sk:Pes_domáci and the converted ones are :Image:Nos psa.svg and :Image:Typ ucha u psa.svg. If you use them, upload them on Commons and add links to other versions of the same image. ~~helix84 13:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: figures to be used 

message: "Dangerous substances
Some foods commonly enjoyed by humans are dangerous to dogs, including chocolate (Theobromine poisoning), onions, grapes and raisins, some types of gum, turkey"
Under that section "turkey" leads to the country of turkey, rather than the food.  Can someone fix that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.200.30  (talk • contribs) 14:57, March 24, 2006  (UTC)
:I've fixed the turkey and gum links. I presume that "gum" refers to chewing gum, but it really isn't very clear. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad link needing to be fixed! 

message: Each box has an image.  I think we should consider adding one video to each box as they are available now at google .  A picture says a thousand words but a video says more :)  
Cordially SirIsaacBrock 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm under the impression that Wikipedia has an images-only policy, mostly for lower-bandwidth users and simplicity. This isn't really relevant  to the dog article anyway. However, it's an interesting concept - put this up for discussion somewhere where it belongs and can be discussed properly. Fiskars007 00:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dog Breed Info Box

message: "Some Dogs, like this Weimaraner, are predators suited to chasing after, leaping at, and killing prey."
Oh come on!!  First of all, the Weimaraner (or any other breed of domesticated canine) is not a predator - yes it could theoretically kill an animal if it had to, but it would have to be pretty desparate to try it.  Therefore, it is not suited to "chasing after, leaping at and killing prey".  Weimaraners are retrievers, bred to sit patiently while the human brought the animal down, and then to go and retrieve it where it fell.  They were almost never used to kill the animals themselves, unlike certain sighthounds and terriers that were.  
Secondly, as I've pointed out, most dogs were bred to help with the hunting (if they are hunting breeds) but not to actually kill the animals themselves.  Granted, Salukis did hunt gazelle in the Middle Age years ago, and Terriers can catch and kill rodents on thier own, but this caption makes it sound like the dogs are out there like tigers, feeding themselves by pouncing on pheasents!
Can someone please fix either the caption or the picture?--The Wizard of Magicland 17:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good catch. Me fix.Gzuckier 15:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Grammatically, it should not be.  However, some editors believe that every occurrance of an article's subject, and sometimes any species name, must be capitalized, which I have not found supported in the manual of style.  Attempts to conform the style grammatically tend to be reversed, so it's a waste of time to try it.  Coyoty 20:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me fix anyway. Gzuckier 15:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: get right down to it everything is a 'waste' of 'time', both of which are invented concepts.  Now is when things happen. User:Pedant 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Captions 

message: The diet section states that, "Some sources suggest that a dog fed on a strict vegetarian diet may develop dilated cardiomyopathy since it lacks L-carnitine.[3]"
However, when you look at the wiki page for carnitine, the natural sources of this substance are listed as:
 
"The best source of natural carnitine is in red meat and dairy products. Other natural sources of Carnitine include nuts and seeds (e.g pumpkin, sunflower, sesame), legumes or pulses (beans, peas, lentils, peanuts), vegetables (artichokes, asparagus, beet greens, broccoli, brussels sprouts, collard greens, garlic, mustard greens, okra, parsley), fruits (apricots, bananas), cereals (buckwheat, corn, millet, oatmeal, rice bran, rye, whole wheat, wheat bran, wheat germ) and other 'health' foods (bee pollen, brewer's yeast, carob, kale)." 
If this is correct, I don't see how a strict vegetarian diet (should this be changed to vegan, to be more specific and to reference further wikipedia reading?) would lack carnitine. The paragraph seems to be expressing only one viewpoint at the cost of the other and the words "some sources" and "may" are very vague, though I'm glad the statement is referenced. 
I'd suggest modifying the paragraph to something more balanced such as this: 
"Some sources suggest that a dog fed on a strict vegetarian diet may develop dilated cardiomyopathy since it lacks L-carnitine, [3] however, maintaining a balanced diet is also a factor since L-carnitine is found naturally in many nuts, seeds, beans, vegetables, fruits and whole grains."
All references to L-carnitine should be linked to the carnitine wikipedia entry for further reading. Limes 05:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet 

message: I can't edit the page, but there's a broken image on it right now. Kushboy 17:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Image 

message: Yes, the correct term for a female dog (and most female canids) is bitch, but the terminology section has the etymology reversed, and colloquial usage of the word bitch has no place in an article such as this. Baleeted. -- horsedreamer 07:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: The entire paragraph beginning "An alternative designation" is incomprehensible hash.
:I've removed the paragraph. As you pointed out, the text was gibberish, and the claim that was attributed to the Journal of Archaeological Sciences #31, May 2004 does not exist. The article The naming of wild animal species and their domestic derivatives is there, but in no way outlines the claim for the latinate names listed. CMacMillan 22:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "An alternative designation..."

message: From the article<BR>
Although all wolves belong to the species Canis lupus, there are (or were) many subspecies that had developed a distinctive appearance, social structure, and other traits. For example, the Japanese Wolf and the Eastern Timber Wolf possess different distinctive colouration, hunting and social structures.<BR>
It would be better to subsitute Indian Wolf for Japanese Wolf in the above sentance. The Japanese Wolf could refer to one of two distinct sub-species , both of which are extinct, making the certainty of their categorisation as a sub-species of Wolf disputable. GameKeeper 09:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement to 'Wolf Ancestors'

message: 1. "The constellations Canes Venatici, Canis Major and Canis Minor are so named for their perceived resemblance to dogs."
-Ok, IMO these are the kind of things that need to be tightened up. First, its irrelevant, but worse its wrong. I guess Canis Major looks like a dog - as much as a cow or a horse or a... Canis Minor is composed of 2 commonly discerable stars and 7 others that are near the limits of human vision assuming no light pollution. I guess its a wiener dog, sorry dachshund. Canes Venatici is only 2 stars, dim and very dim. If any similar referances are retained I would propose tying Canis Major and Minor to the whole mans best freind thing, because they are orion's hunting dog's and I presume were named to give him these treasured (apparently since ancient times) companions; not because they looked like dogs. Especially in the case of C. Minor... I just don't like to see popular assumptions, ie -"constellations 
:That idea may just have been tenable in 1954, but it isn't now. Ben-w 07:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unneccisary, Unsubstantiated or Incorrect info. 

message: * www.animals-pictures-dictionary.com/cat/25-Dogs-Domestic-Breeds Dogs - Domestic Breeds Pictures
Why does the POV user removed this link?
it was one of the "General Info" Links, and I realy think that it is interesting for the surfers, don't you people?
That link is in violation of the External Links policies, and seems to be designed to get more eyeballs at the ads on the page - Trysha (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Edited quote from the article:
:Dogs were first domesticated  [...] perhaps as early as 100,000 years ago based upon recent genetic fossil and DNA evidence.
1. What does "genetic fossil and DNA" mean? I don't understand "genetic fossil."
:::Try "genetic, fossil..."  Gordon | Talk, 05:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic fossil evidence 

message: This is a stupid thing to say:
"The loyalty and devotion that dogs demonstrate as part of their natural instincts as pack animals closely mimics the human idea of love and friendship, leading many dog owners to view their pets as full-fledged family members"
Can you define the difference between "loyalty and devotion" and "love and friendship"? And anyway, in what way does the instinctual behavior of dogs mimic that of humans? Didn't dogs behave in this way long before they were domesticated?
I would put it another way: 
"Dogs show loyalty and devotion due to their natural instinct as pack animals. This behavior is close to the human idea of love and friendship, leading many dog owners to accept their pets into their families as full-fledged family members."
::Dogs are cool, luv em.--John Lake 17:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire section on paedomorphism is, in my opinion, speculative and nonsense. I have never read such a silly pseudo-scientific bunch of trash. Much of the speculation is not only unfounded, but, in my opinion, utterly false. Darwin would cringe at this nonsense. I will leave it to anyone with greater expertise than I to repair and rewrite if appropriate. 66.108.4.183 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Coppinger notes the great, and usually unappreciated, difference between guarding and herding breeds. Herders control movement of sheep by using predatory behaviors of adult dogs---stalking, chasing, biting, and barking---but inhibiting the final outcome. These breeds feature adult traits of form and behavior; they display no neotenous characteristics. Guard dogs, on the other hand, simply move with and among the flock. They work alone and do not control the flock's motion. They afford protection primarily by their size, for few coyotes will attack a flock accompanied by a one-hundred-pound dog. They behave toward the sheep as puppies do towards other dogs---licking the sheep's face as a puppy might in asking for food, chasing and biting with the playfulness of young dogs, even mounting sheep as young dogs mount each other is sexual play and rehearsal. This neotenous behavior accompanies a persistently juvenile morphology, as these dogs grow short faces, big eyes, and floppy ears. Coppinger has raised guarding and herding dogs together from babyhood. They show little difference in behavior until puberty. Herders then develop the standard traits of adulthood---border collies begin to stalk, while retrievers and pointers live up to their names. But the guarders develop no new patterns and simply retain their youthful traits. Thus, a valuable set of features can be recruited together because they already exist as the normal form and behavior of juvenile dogs. Patterns of growth are rich reservoirs, not sterile strictures." Stephen J. Gould, Eight Little Piggies: Reflections in Natural History 1993 pp:394 Gzuckier 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally completely and will forever agree!  Most of this is mere oppinion! I am proud to sign my name: B katt 500 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mimics? 

message: So... Sorry if this is a silly question, but what's up with the "Dog Behavior" section? It only links to an article that dosn't exist - an article that probably should exist. Was that article deleted, or has no one gotten around to it? The Son Of Nothing 03:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i second the question. Gzuckier 15:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...dog behavior? 

message: I was wondering if there is any support for a category for people that have made a significant contribution to dogs ?  Famous breeders, owners, show people etc... Some help on the name of the +cat would be appreciated.  SirIsaacBrock 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Dog-related professions and professionals is a good start. Elf | Talk 02:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Famous dog people]]

message: I feel the last revert removing the information about dogs being suseptable to heat exhaustion was unjustifed.  Can we Discuss this? What i need to change?  I feel it adds value to the article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRegan (talk • contribs) 
: I re-added your content, but replaced the reference with a .edu one (versus the commercial one that you'd added). Wikipedia is not a good place to try to boost traffic to commercial sites. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert Unjustified

message: Dogs need bones as well as a big range of healthy RAW meats and vegetables crushed in a blender 
so that they resemble the insides of offals.
 
Dogs have 0.2% different DNA to wolves so we should feed them the same as what wolves have 
eaten for milleniums. It's their evolutionary diet. Wolves used to eat the carcasses of animals 
they caught, and the feces of animals.
 
We need to match this by providing the same nutrients of their evolutionary diet. Some dogs may 
eat vegetables whole but the reason they generally don't is because you can't change the 
evolution of a dog in 80 or so years. They need to be mashed up. Also their is no way a dog can 
live properly healthily on a vegetarian diet. No way whatsoever. It contradicts every bit of 
evolutionary principles. I learnt this all off probably one of the best person on dogs in the 
world. Geoff Bowers who alone in 1 year changed the amount of police dog alsations got into the 
police force from 5% to 85%. He won dog handler of the year once. If you need the proper diet 
of a dog reference or buy the BARF diet by Dr. Ian Billinghurst. BARF stand for biologically 
appropriate raw food or bones and raw food. Every word that I say is true.
:Several things:
#Dogs aren't obligate carnivores. They can survive and even thrive on a vegetarian diet, as long as it is properly balanced.
#Raw meats aren't the greatest things for dogs nowadays, as the meat you buy in a grocery store usually has a fair amount of E. Coli bacteria on its surface or inside of it even (for ground meat), and dogs are just as likely to be sick from it as we are.
#Pushing any kind of commercial goods is usually not permitted in Wikipedia.--Ramdrake 13:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diet

message: Deleted because it must have been posted for vanity. That's an ugly shiba, for one, and the caption "Shibas have a unique appearance that resembles foxes" is stupid. They resemble foxes only if your eyes are covered in vasoline, and the Shiba look is hardly unique. The shiba looks like most other Asian spitzes.
:Did you notice that it just came back?  Deleting that picture may have been seen a vandalism.  I'll admit that it does not look like a fox, yet it is extremely adorable for a dog! B katt 500 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shiba picture 

message: If you look at the page that talks about chickens, it has a section for Famous Real and Fictional Chickens.  Why wouldn't this have a section for Famous Real and Fictional Dogs?
If it is okay and is allowed to do, will add a section for Famous Real and Fictional Dogs?
:Lists for both of these already exist -- I created a small section to give background to them and link to them. Does this work? Ben-w 23:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Real and Fictional Dogs 

message: I marked it as a stub, but somebody's got to explain how it managed to remain so empty. It doesn't even mention dogs chasing their tail! BioTube 05:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or attacking people. I note that the dog-loving (i.e. people-hating) cabal have managed to completely whitewash this aspect of dog behaviour from the article. --Q4 21:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are pretty thorough articles on dog communication, dog society, dog attack, dog aggression, and lots of other topics in :Category:Dog training and behavior. I've added a link to that category; "behavior" covers such a wide range that it's going to be hard to summarize all the various aspects. Elf | Talk 02:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog behavior section 

message: I'm getting a formatting error with some misplaced edit tags in the Physical Characteristics section. I'm using Firefox 1.5. Anyone else getting that? --Rob W 19:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: The peer review contains no information as to how to improve the article to A-class. I think there needs there needs to be another review to identify the necessities for improvement, so editors have a clear conception as to what to do. Some day this article will become listed and remain as a featured article. When it is, I want the picture of my doggie chewing on a bone to be reinserted into the article. 09:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Review 

message: Quite a lot (read: most) of the pictures here are of the "LOOK AT MY DOGLET INT IT KYUTE!!" type. This seems inevitable. Vitriol 01:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Perhaps less cute doglets should replace them to emphasise the scientific content of the article. Rintrah 12:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawls. 

message: The paragraph on livestock dogs (ie: pastoral in the UK, herding in US/Canada) isn't accurate. The most juvenile characteristics of round body and dropped ears? I think this is specific to certain breeds rather than a category. After all, this would include collies, corgis, and German shepherds. CMacMillan 14:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this... I've edited the paragraph on "Livestock Guardian Dogs". The physical description was incorrect, and the concept of livestock (herding, guarding) dogs viewing their charges as a surrogate litter is patently wrong. Surrogate, unapproachable food is more like it. CMacMillan 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dog "category" behaviours?

message: :With their tongues. Duh. Gzuckier 15:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we add this to the article? Rintrah 16:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the cow article describe the taste of beef? CMacMillan 16:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A dog has no taste buds. Their sense of smell works in that way Irishgt 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  on that.  Cites disputing that:     -- Boracay Bill 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem with that is there are almost as many nerves in a dogs tounge as there is in there teeth, next to none compared to their nose. It is argued that their nose overides their 1700 taste receptors, since they don't have 9000 that we have. So the info about taste is pure speculation and has almost never held up in the Veterinary world.  Irishgt 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How do dogs taste

message: Why is it not possible to edit this page? Normally there's a little box that says a page has been blocked from anonymous editing when this happens, but not with dog.
:It just randomly targets vandals. CMacMillan 16:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I want to edit this page 

message: While it is possible to kill animals for their own good, the range of cases in which this possible is limited and does not include the more common kind of case in which domesticated animals are said to be euthanized.  For the most common case involves killing healthy animals - strays and unwanted pets.  Since the condition of these animals differs importantly from the condition of those whose euthanasia is preference-respecting, we need to ask how we should understand the practice of euthanizing healthy but unwanted animals.
As is true of euthanasia generally, paternalistic euthanasia - when we impose our will and our judgment on the animal for the animal's own good - requires more than that death be casued by the least painful means, more than that one's motive be appropriately other-regarding, and more than one believe that death is in the interests of those who are killed.  That belief must be true.  Virtually all cases where healthy, unwanted pet animals are said to be euthanized fail to qualify as euthanasia.  Becahse these animals are healthy, killing them can only erroneously be classified as preference-respecting.
The question at issue is not which policy is morally preferable - the one where healthy animals are, or the one where they are not, routinely killed, if they have not been adopted in a given length of time.  The question is conceptual.  It is whether animals are euthanized when shelters rely on the practice of killing animals if they have not been adopted after a given length of time.  The answer must be, no.  This does not entail that putting animals to sleep must be wrong.  It is simply to remove a piece of the rhetoric standing in the way of commanding a clear view of the ehtics of this practice.  The animals are being killed, not euthanized.
:If you're looking for a philosophical discussion, this isn't the place, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. CMacMillan 14:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euthanasia 

message: i realize that there is considerable genetic (as well as morphological and behavioral) evidence to place dogs as direct descendants of mid-eastern wolves; but does this mean that they are necessarily the same species? dogs, even in the wilderness, are more likely to be eaten by wolves than to breed with them; they're, in fact, more likely to cross with the coyote, a slightly more distant relative. even polar bears are, genetically speaking, nearer to some brown bear (Ursus arctos) lineages than others (though more or less similarly divergent to each when it comes down to morphology and behavior). has anyone else here thought along any of these lines? maybe i'm just more a "splitter" than a "lumper"!---Metanoid 03:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I know, a species is defined as being a group of individuals who share enough characteristics that their offspring can themselves produce further offspring. As almost all cases of wolf-dog crossing I have ever heard of produce potentially or factually fertile offspring, they would seem to qualify as being of the same species according to that definition. This is not to say that they necessarily like each other, as many other members of the same or very closely related species fight too, just that they qualify as being the same species according to the primary definition of which I am aware. Badbilltucker 15:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as a student of biology, i can tell you that not only can dogs produce viable young with wolves, but with coyotes too, and many species of jackals. polar bear/brown bear hybrids are very healthy and backcross fine. tigers and lions often produce fertile offspring. white bass and white perch. mallards and most other dabbling ducks. steller's jays and blue jays. even baboons and macaques (monkeys). i just don't think that a simple viability of hybrids should be the only parameter. i can provide  sources, of course, if anyone is interested; but i think that to be legit this article should be slightly less evolutionarily naive (imho).---Metanoid 19:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wolf subspecies? 

message: The link to the Reuters article about artificial sweetners  is dead.--Filll 06:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link

message: There is no evidence to link the OE "docga" with the mastiff.  No English literature makes the connection.  Further, the following web refs show clearly that even in modern usage the two words are unrelated.
*mastiff
**"large, powerful breed of dog," c.1330, from O.Fr. mastin or Prov. mastis, both from V.L. *mansuetinus "domesticated," from L. mansuetus "tame, gentle" (see mansuetude). Form infl. by O.Fr. mestif "mongrel."
**Online Etymology
*dog
**O.E. docga, a late, rare word used of a powerful breed of canine. It forced out O.E. hund (the general Gmc. and IE word; see canine) by 16c. and subsequently was picked up in many continental languages (cf. Fr. dogue, Dan. dogge), but the origin remains one of the great mysteries of English etymology.
**Online Etymology
*dogged
**This clearly comes from the verbal form of 'dog', which means to follow or hunt like a dog. The origin of 'dog' is one that seems to mystify even the most dogged of etymologists. Dog seems to be another one of our pure Anglo Saxon words - docga. 'Canine' and 'hound' can be traced but 'dog' just appeared. It is also interesting that cognates of 'dog' appear later in French, dogue, and German, dogge, for certain types of dogs such as the mastiff. However, these words come from the English 'dog.'
**The Toad's Words
In general, Dogue (fr) and Dog (du) --> mastiff (eng), but Dogo (sp) --> bulldog (eng).  Gordon | Talk, 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "''Docga''" and [[Mastiff]]s 

message: in the scientific show NOVA, it said that dogs most likely originated in India. however, when i listed this, it was deleted, but why?Crawfordknights 00:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you made a claim, then removed a reference, and then did not cite any evidence to substantiate your theory.  It would have helped if you had cited the NOVA article (assuming a written transcript is available) as evidence that someone other than you had thought of it.  Even just mentioning NOVA would have been a good start.  As Ohnoitsjamie pointed out, the existence of stray dogs now does not support any theory of evolution or origins then.  Gordon | Talk, 12:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: Moved to Talk:Serial comma.  Gordon | Talk, 10:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That serial comma. 

message: Look at this text:
New evidence suggests that dogs were first domesticated in East Asia, possibly China,[5] ... Because many of the 14 breeds are associated with China and Japan, the theory that the dog originated in Asia seems to be likely.[5]
Does this mean to say that those ancinet breeds have been domestic the longest?  Wouldn't the opposite be true?  That gentically wolf-like breeds have changed less from wolves, by definition, and thus were brought out of wolf conditions most recently?  And that the genetically most altered breed have been mutating the longest, and thus entered domestic conditions earlier?
The end note expalining this links to a members only site.  Does anyone know the answer to this, or other evidence?
Sukkoth 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older or Newer? 

message: Substituted at 20:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment