Canis rufus Audubon and Bachman, 1851
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7359191 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7287987 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/41263629-C32B-747E-FF31-F430FCFC1EFB |
treatment provided by |
GgServerImporter |
scientific name |
Canis rufus Audubon and Bachman, 1851 |
status |
|
Canis rufus Audubon and Bachman, 1851 View in CoL . Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America, 2:240.
TYPE LOCALITY: Not given. Restricted by Goldman (1937) to " 15 miles west of Austin, Texas " [ USA], based on accounts from Audubon and Bachman (1851) .
DISTRIBUTION: SE and SC USA, from Florida to C Texas and north to S Indiana and Missouri.
STATUS: U.S. ESA - Endangered (except Dare, Tyrrell, Hyde, and Washington Counties, North Carolina, which have a nonessential experimental population); IUCN - Endangered.
SYNONYMS: floridanus Miller, 1912 ; gregoryi Goldman, 1937; niger Bartram, 1791.
COMMENTS: Reviewed and recognized by Paradiso and Nowak (1972, Mammalian Species, 22); also recognized by Paradiso (1968), Atkins and Dillion (1971), and Nowak (1979). The widely used name C. niger is invalid (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1957«). The validity of rufus as a full species was questioned by Clutton-Brock et al. (1976), due to the existence of natural hybrids with lupus and latrans . Natural hybridization may be a consequence of habitat disruption by man ( Paradiso and Nowak, 1971). Nowak (1979) provided evidence for specific distinctness. All specimens examined by Wayne and Jenks (1991) had either a lupus or latrans mtDNA genotype.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.