www.lesswrong.com/posts/oMWXqoCCXYxbGtcWW/wildlife-biology-forgot-how-definition...
2 corrections found
It was considered a subspecies of the Gray Wolf until it was split in 2000 on the basis of a single mitochondrial DNA study.
The key 2000-era genetic work used both mitochondrial DNA and nuclear microsatellite markers, not just a single mtDNA study.
Full reasoning
Why this is incorrect
The post claims the Eastern Wolf was split in 2000 based on “a single mitochondrial DNA study.” But the Canadian government’s COSEWIC status report explicitly describes the foundational work underpinning the Eastern Wolf’s recognition as using both:
- mtDNA control-region sequences, and
- 8 microsatellite loci (nuclear DNA markers)
That directly contradicts the “single mitochondrial DNA study” description.
How I checked
- I consulted the COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Eastern Wolf (Canada.ca), which summarizes the evidence base used to identify/recognize the Eastern Wolf and explicitly lists the marker types used in the early genetics work.
Evidence
COSEWIC states: “The initial basis for the 3-species hypothesis was work on 8 microsatellite loci and mtDNA control-region sequences... (Wilson et al. ...)” — meaning the split/recognition was not based on mtDNA alone.
1 source
- COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Eastern Wolf Canis sp. cf. lycaon in Canada - 2015 - Canada.ca
“The initial basis for the 3-species hypothesis was work on 8 microsatellite loci and mtDNA control-region sequences...”
To this day, everyone knows that we should be calling birds reptiles, but we just refuse to do it.
This overstates the situation: many biologists and museums explicitly present birds as reptiles (via their dinosaur ancestry), so it’s not true that “we just refuse to do it.”
Full reasoning
Why this is incorrect
The claim says that biologists “refuse” to call birds reptiles “to this day.” That’s contradicted by clear counterexamples: major scientific/museum institutions explicitly do present birds as reptiles (or as dinosaurs, which are reptiles).
For example, the University of Cambridge Museum of Zoology describes a permanent display of “reptiles including birds” and states the museum is highlighting that “birds are a specialised group of reptiles.” This directly contradicts the idea that biologists categorically refuse to treat birds as reptiles.
Similarly, the Western Australian Museum explicitly states that birds were reclassified as dinosaurs, which again places them within reptiles and shows that at least many scientific communicators and biologists do not “refuse” this framing.
How I checked
I looked for authoritative biology/museum sources describing modern evolutionary classification of birds relative to reptiles/dinosaurs.
What the evidence shows
Because reputable institutions explicitly classify or present birds as reptiles/dinosaurs, it cannot be correct that “we just refuse to do it” across biology as a whole.
2 sources
- New displays show that birds are another kind of reptile | University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge
Describes “reptiles including birds” and says the Museum is highlighting that “birds are a specialised group of reptiles...”
- Birds Are Dinosaurs Too | Western Australian Museum
States that birds were reclassified as dinosaurs once evidence accumulated, implying birds fall within dinosaur (reptile) ancestry.