mrjyn dailymotion videos




From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Dog was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

[hide]          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Dogs [show](Rated B-class, Top-importance)

[show]WikiProject Citizendium Porting (Last updated: Never)

[show]Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental
This article has an assessment summary page.


Threads older than 90 days may be archived by MiszaBot I.


The picture does look like a doberman!

It may be a different breed but it looks like a dobie. --Drdayill (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
New Edit in response to above: There is no such thing as a different breed of doberman. There is the doberman pinscher created by the tax collector Mr. Doberman (and obviously named after him)and then the miniature pinscher which is NOT a tiny doberman. It is only a misnomer and neither breed is related. I have had both breeds. Here is a quote directly from the minature pinscher page:
"The misconception that the miniature pinscher is a "miniature Doberman" occurred because the Doberman pinscher was introduced to the US before the miniature pinscher. In 1919 the miniature pinscher was introduced to the AKC show ring. At the time, not knowing that it was referred to officially in Germany as the zwergpinscher (dwarfpinscher), the AKC referred to the breed as simply "pinscher" and listed it in the miscellaneous category. When the Miniature Pinscher Club of America (MPCA) was created in 1929 (the year of the breed's official introduction into the AKC), they petitioned for miniature pinschers to be placed in the Toy group. The AKC's description, that the dog "must appear as a Doberman in miniature", led to the misconception common today that this breed is a "miniature Doberman pinscher". The original name for this breed in the US was "pinscher" until 1972 when the name was officially changed to miniature pinscher. [3]"


We should remove or greatly modify the shelter section. It appears to be US specific, it is not subject specific, the adoption rate is confusing. Very Little in the section is useful.Mantion (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Right now it appears fine to me. I did not follow the link. Jobberone (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Imperial Units

The introduction cites imperial units with metric units in parenthesis. Since this is a science related article, and non-US or UK based, the [guidelines on which units to use] say that the units should generally be in SI units. the heights and other measurement units in the article should therefore be changed to SI or non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI. Dekox (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a way to use both or maybe allow user preferation. As a scientist and part time resident of China the metric is fine with me. For the US and others it is more comfortable the other way round for the most part. Jobberone (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I switched the imperial and SI units in the lead section and standardized them on cm (in). The only other section in the article to use the conversion tags is the Biology section and it uses SI measurements first. Coaster1983 (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


Shouldn't.t they mention that in 2012 the animal planet website had an America favorte pet election and dogs won? I mean they did that when it was Announced that the tiger won the world.s favorite animal contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likesstitch (talkcontribs) 22:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


Check this out: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unnatural_selection,_2_heads,_one_species.jpg There might be a way to use it here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Multiples lineages of paleolithic dogs

The present lineage of dogs was domesticated from gray wolves probably about 15,000 years ago.[5] Though remains of domesticated dogs have been found in Siberia and Belgium from about 33,000 years ago, none of those lineages seem to have survived the Last Glacial Maximum. There is no reference confirming that the remains of domestic dogs found in Siberia and Belgium are remains of another lineage of dogs ... Have somebody any informations on the existence of another lineage of paleolithic dogs?--Monsieur Fou (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The only recent reference I can find says : Wolf/dog split around 100,000 years ago, clearly morphologically domesticated dog fossils specimens 33,000 years ago. But nothing about different lineages of paleolithic dogs. The reference number 5 ([5]) was published in November 2002. The text about remains found in Siberia was published in 2011 and the text about the remains found in Belgium was published in 2009. I don't understand how a study published in 2002 can refer to remains found in 2009 and 2011 and exclude them of present lineage...--Monsieur Fou (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I wrote that first part. I interpret that data as we have fossil evidence of dogs back to 33K years ago but no DNA evidence to make the leap from 14000 years ago or so to relate to the fossil remains in Belgium and Siberia. Right now most agree the older lineage didn't get thru the last glacier maximum but I'm not convinced of that. There just isn't any data to prove they did. That's probably going to change and may already have. I haven't looked recently but DNA methods are exponentially getting better and faster. If you feel that needs to be cleaned up do so if you are certain of the data already out there which is substantial. In fact the entire History and Evolution as well as DNA sections need editing because they are too repetitive. One or two editors should edit this IMO. Jobberone (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


There are several citations to "Miklósi", but it is not clear, if this is a book, author, article or something else. It does not provide a link, ISBN or any possible way to verify. Sorry to say but those citations are clearly bogus as they are now. This is what I refer to: "25 ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Miklósi"Kshegunov (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I assume, the reference is to http://www.amazon.com/Behaviour-Evolution-Cognition-Oxford-Biology/dp/0199545669 Afru (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
If you scroll past the Reference section to Dog#Bibliography, you will see the it.--Dodo bird (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
That may be, but it isn't clear (and wasn't when I wrote my first comment) from the lengthy list of references that it should be searched in the bibliography. A hyperlink would have been much better, as it's obvious it made an impression on me and that's why I came to the talk page to comment specifically on that issue.Kshegunov (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
No page numbers given either: you just have to read the whole book! William Avery (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
References #30, 31, 43, 114, 117 and 119 point to specific pages in the book. Probably the reason why the full citation was split from the reference section. I guess you could tag everything that points to #25 with Template:Page needed if you see the need.--Dodo bird (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


This has already been debated here. Fossils don't have to be mineralized bone etc. Any evidence left preserved which indicates the presence of an organism from the geologic past is a fossil including mummified and soft tissue remains. Signs of activity of an organism is also a fossil. It could be offensive to other editors for one to remove their work under the false assumption some old dog bones aren't fossils because they aren't completely mineralized. How do you think we get DNA out of old bones? If they were nothing but rock then we wouldn't get DNA would we?
If you're going to change work that has been there for quite awhile then perhaps it would be better to discuss it first or provide references that counter any information out there. Improving an article is to be encouraged. No one owns any article on Wikipedia. Having said that it's best to be correct as well as helpful and bold when improving any article.
Having said that there is nothing wrong with the use of archeological remains either. Jobberone (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know where people got the idea that archeological remains are fossils. Look at the worthless citation in the article Fossil used to back up the ridiculous claim that 8,000 BCE is old enough to be a fossil. Even the Fossil article goes on to explain that fossilization is the process by which organic material is replaced (at least in part) by minerals. Do the sources on the dog remains from Belgium and Altai mention any mineralization? If not, then it is best to assume that none occurred. Abductive (reasoning) 22:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how to debate this with you. All I can do is point you back to the definition I gave you of what a fossil is. OTOH, I've already said that I don't have a major problem with using archeological as you did. You do need to know that most people associate that word in the true sense which is the study of human activity. If you meant to use it as being something 'ancient' then that's ok. If you consider the fossils studied say in Belgium are related to human activity then I have no problem with that although I don't remember if they were or not.
Just dropping by here--you can google "what is a fossil" and find many, many credible pages that identify "fossil" to include many types of artifacts, not just mineralized ones, and that there's no minimum age for something to be called a fossil. The summary of the fossils article probably should be corrected because in fact it does talk about nonmineralized fossils under "subfossil" and "lagerstatte". Elf | Talk 19:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I will say that ref 6 is named:
= Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes =
Using multivariate techniques, several skulls of fossil large canids from sites in Belgium, Ukraine and Russia were examined to look for possible evidence of the presence of Palaeolithic dogs. Reference groups constituted of prehistoric dogs, and recent wolves and dogs. The fossil large canid from Goyet (Belgium), dated at c. 31,700 BP is clearly different from the recent wolves, resembling most closely the prehistoric dogs. Thus it is identified as a Palaeolithic dog, suggesting that dog domestication had already started during the Aurignacian.
So clearly the authors consider them to be fossils. Jobberone (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The only source I have found to define fossils excludes all specimens buried by man. A domesticated dog buried in a human habitation is not a fossil. Abductive (reasoning) 21:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Then you aren't researching it well or you are being willfully obtuse. The reference for the statement calls them fossils and most people and definitions are clear on the matter of what a fossil is. I didn't bother looking at your 'ref' because that statement is ridiculous on its face. Additionally you were incorrect in using archeological and I was very polite it pointing it out to you. You are clearly wrong on two issues and just being obstinate. Which is your right but don't try and sell that nonsense to me please. I don't bother anymore with arguments. You can do what you wish to the article but you should try to get your facts straight first IMO. In fact the entire article needs to be tidied up. Jobberone (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hit me with secondary sources. Note that the reference calling them fossils cannot be considered reliable on the definition of fossils (in other words, it is a primary source). Note also that there is no mineralization, and the dogs were ritually buried. Abductive (reasoning) 20:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Now why should I do this for you when you can easily look this up yourself? If you only found one ref then you didn't look long. There are many to be found. However, in the interest of social relations here is one site. [1]

Altai dog - 33,000 BP

The oldest archeological specimens date to 33,000 years ago, but only specimens from 15,000 years ago have been genetically linked to the modern dog's lineage.[4][6][7][8] That's false. This recent publication (March 6, 2013) about altai dog confirm by DNA testing that altai dog is linked to modern dog's lineage: Druzhkova AS, Thalmann O, Trifonov VA, Leonard JA, Vorobieva NV, et al. (2013) Ancient DNA Analysis Affirms the Canid from Altai as a Primitive Dog. PLoS ONE 8(3): e57754. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057754. The reference([4]) is already in the article but somebody added only specimens from 15,000 years ago have been genetically linked to the modern dog's lineage.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
That article is looking at mtDNA and not nuclear. It is interesting and it does need to be incorporated into the wiki article IMO. It is not definitive as relating the present lineage of dog to that specimen though. I personally believe we will find out that the dog did survive the LGM but that is personal and speculative only. That study is a chink in the armor for that statement though. Additionally, that sentence was changed recently and it should be changed from 'archeological specimens' to fossils. I'd be interested in discussing this with you. Cheers. Jobberone (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I corrected and moved the references in the History and evolution, until an update.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that mtDNA is as clear an indication of lineage as nuclear DNA, but I'm no expert and I'm not pursuing that point here. The assertion in the lead is "DNA evidence shows an evolutionary split between the modern dog's lineage and the modern wolf's lineage around 100,000 years ago but the oldest archeological specimens which is genetically linked to the modern dog's lineage date to 33,000 years ago", citing [1] in support. The link is to an article abstract. I haven't read the article, but
  • The abstract does not support the first part of the assertion (re 100,000 years), but that is supported in the DNA studies section.
  • The cited abstract says, "Here we isolated, [...] dated as approx. 33,000 cy from the Altai Mountains in central Asia. Only a single specimen - namely the Goyet dog (36,000 cy [2]) predates the Altai dog and hence it is thus far the second oldest known specimen assigned morphologically to the domestic dog", which doesn't clearly support what the article asserts.
  • Re the Goyet dog, the cited abstract cites [2], which says "The fossil large canid from Goyet (Belgium), dated at c. 31,700 BP ..." (not 33,000, not 36,000).
Accordingly, I've made this bold edit. Apologies for the difference in citation styles -- I'm not confident that I can hand-code complicated cites properly. Revert or improve as needed -- It seems to me that some content now in the lead should move to the DNA studies section. 00:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
No problems. I changed DNA to MtDNA as you are correct. MtDNA and DNA are indeed different with their own unique problems. I think the lead is ok as its brief and useful for the casual reader. But feel free to make any changes you deem necessary and useful. I did change 30,000 to 33-36K but left the appropriate approximate. The genetic section needs to be condensed. There have been many contributions without cleaning up the redundancy and repetitive info. I haven't researched this area in a year so I'd certainly welcome some changes there. Cheers! Jobberone (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)