Taxonomic tangles posed by human association – the urgent need for an evidence-based review of dingo and domestic dog taxonomy and nomenclature

A serious challenge in modern taxonomy is whether, or how, relationships with humans have altered the evolutionary trajectory of species and how this should be dealt with in taxonomic nomenclature. Despite their historic treatment as a discrete taxon, the taxonomy and nomenclature of dingoes has been robustly debated for decades, in part due to their close evolutionary relationship to wolves and domestic dogs, as well as uncertainty about the role of humans in shaping their origins. One outcome of this ongoing scientific debate is a set of criteria regarding reproductive isolation, evolutionary distinctiveness and evolutionary origins that can be used to refine discussion about the appropriate taxonomy of dingoes. We review significant scientific advances in our knowledge of the distinct identity of dingoes in light of these criteria and discuss the need for scientists to assess the multi-stage process of domestication when considering species that may have interacted with humans over evolutionary timescales. Current evidence indicates that dingoes are on a different evolutionary trajectory to domestic dogs and thus we argue that the appropriate nomenclature for dingoes is Canis dingo or Canis lupus dingo, not Canis familiaris. We suggest that an independent evidence-based scientific review with expert consultation is one pathway through which taxonomic debate about dingoes and other controversial species could be resolved.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Australian Mammalogy
Published
2025-08-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1071/am24052
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Human-Animal Interaction Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.82
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Taxonomic tangles posed by human association – the urgent need for an evidence-based review of dingo and domestic dog taxonomy and nomenclature

Mike Letnic, Justin W. Adams, Mathew S. Crowther, Thomas M. Newsome et al.
1 citations
Australian Mammalogy
Human-Animal Interaction Studies
1.82
article

Taxonomic tangles posed by human association – the urgent need for an evidence-based review of dingo and domestic dog taxonomy and nomenclature

Mike Letnic, Justin W. Adams, Mathew S. Crowther, Thomas M. Newsome, Jack Pascoe, Bradley Smith, Euan G. Ritchie, Melanie A. Fillios, Chris R. Dickman, Kylie M. Cairns
article en
1 citations

Abstract

A serious challenge in modern taxonomy is whether, or how, relationships with humans have altered the evolutionary trajectory of species and how this should be dealt with in taxonomic nomenclature. Despite their historic treatment as a discrete taxon, the taxonomy and nomenclature of dingoes has been robustly debated for decades, in part due to their close evolutionary relationship to wolves and domestic dogs, as well as uncertainty about the role of humans in shaping their origins. One outcome of this ongoing scientific debate is a set of criteria regarding reproductive isolation, evolutionary distinctiveness and evolutionary origins that can be used to refine discussion about the appropriate taxonomy of dingoes. We review significant scientific advances in our knowledge of the distinct identity of dingoes in light of these criteria and discuss the need for scientists to assess the multi-stage process of domestication when considering species that may have interacted with humans over evolutionary timescales. Current evidence indicates that dingoes are on a different evolutionary trajectory to domestic dogs and thus we argue that the appropriate nomenclature for dingoes is Canis dingo or Canis lupus dingo, not Canis familiaris. We suggest that an independent evidence-based scientific review with expert consultation is one pathway through which taxonomic debate about dingoes and other controversial species could be resolved.

Australian MammalogyVol. 47(3)
The University of Sydney (AU), Deakin University (AU), The University of Melbourne (AU), University of Johannesburg (ZA), Discovery Institute (US), Museums Victoria (AU), UNSW Sydney (AU), Human Growth Foundation (US), Environmental Earth Sciences (AU), Central Queensland University (AU), University of New England (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Human-Animal Interaction Studies
1.82
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.