Everyone who interprets data has an agenda, to greater or lesser degree. Here is mine: The Australian dingo and New Guinea Singing dog are unique and valuable canine archetypes--living fossils who illustrate the natural state of our modern refined breeds. Conserving them from extinction is a matter of great importance. Protecting the quality of life of all currently-living specimens is also of prime importance! These animals share a part of our heritage that no other animal ever has, and we are morally obligated to honor our shared past by standing by them in their time of need.
I'd like to address a false dilemma, right off the bat. While many activists find the species designation of the Australian dingo and New Guinea Singing dog to be a critical factor in protecting them, I would argue that it is ENTIRELY possible to protect these animals regardless of their (somewhat arbitrary, semantically based) taxonomical designation. Conservation is a *choice*. Like the Koreans or the Japanese, whose dogs are extremely similar to the dingo in every way (appearance, behaviour and breed history), the dingo could be declared a National Treasure, sheltered and revered. There is an inherent value in being able to study and enjoy our First Dog.
While there are valid concerns regarding predation on livestock, Australian farmers could take a page from the history of the North American wolf, whose successful management included things like conditioned taste aversion, and livestock guardian dogs, llamas, and/or donkeys. One might even consider the approach to feral cat management, where animals are trapped, sexually sterilised, and re-released--these animals hold the territory and social breeding rights, while the population withers away over time. In the case of Australian dingoes, they would also provide guidance to the upcoming generations, teaching them to hunt desirable prey (such as invasive foxes and cats who decimate the native wildlife, and kangaroos who quietly consume large amounts of vegetation needed by other species) instead of setting themselves upon "easy" livestock meals due to poor success in taking their natural prey.
Much debate has been had over the classification of the NGSD and the Aussie dingo.
Technically, the latest USDA release (pasted and linked at bottom) is taxonomically outdated; the domestic dog has not been "Canis familiaris" in the US since 1993. However, this is just semantics. In fact, I find it possible that all domestic dogs may be reclassified soon enough--in light of recent DNA evidence that dogs are not descended directly from the gray wolf, but rather were domesticated from the Southern (Indian, Middle Eastern, and/or Chinese) wolf, following the Southern and Northern wolves� split from their last common ancestor.
The dingo is officially classified as Canis familiaris in its native Australia, and exhibits permanent changes due to domestication. In addition to having genetics (via DNA studies) that prove dingoes fall under the umbrella of domesticated dogs, they also have the corresponding morphological and behavioral signs of domestication, which will be detailed below.
This essay only aims to show the interconnectedness of all village dogs, pariahs, and purebreds--and establish that the dingo breeds fall well within the continuum of primitive domestic dogs.
SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
A sampling of the most relevant genetic and observational research, proving that neither of the dingo breeds falls outside of the genetic, behavioral, or phenotypic range of the domestic dog as a whole.
Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying dog domestication. Wayne, 2010
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3494089/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3494089/figure/F1/
"Neighbour-joining trees reveal that most of these breeds (basenji, Afghan hound, Samoyed, saluki, Canaan dog, New Guinea singing dog, dingo, chow chow, Chinese Shar Pei, Akita, Alaskan malamute, Siberian husky and American Eskimo dog) are highly divergent from other dog breeds."
Wild dogs and village dogs in New Guinea: Were they different? Dwyer, 2015
"In early reports from coastal lowland New Guinea, at Bosavi in 1966, at Gwaimasi in 1986-87 and to a lesser extent at Suabi in 2011-14 most village-based dogs corresponded in a number of morphological and behavioural attributes to features that have been highlighted in accounts of high altitude, purportedly wild-living, New Guinea dogs. These include size, colour and markings, the presence of a tail brush, tail flagging, climbing ability, howling and chorusing. None of these attributes distinguishes village dogs at any altitude of New Guinea from wild-living dogs..."
"Most recently, Jackson and Groves (2015: 288), urging �caution about applying formal scientific names to introduced populations�, consider that the trivial names dingo, papuensis and hallstromi should be treated as synonyms of familiaris. They argue, further, that subspecific labelling within C. familiaris is unwarranted on the grounds �of a general acknowledgement that a domestic species cannot have subspecies because these could not be geographic segments of the species as they have no natural distribution�."
A detailed picture of the origin of the Australian dingo, obtained from the study of mitochondrial DNA. Savolainen, 2004.
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/33/12387.full
"To determine the origin and time of arrival to Australia of the dingo, 582 bp of the mtDNA control region were analyzed in 211 Australian dingoes sampled in all states of Australia, 676 dogs from all continents, and 38 Eurasian wolves, and 263 bp were analyzed in 19 pre-European archaeological dog samples from Polynesia. We found that all mtDNA sequences among dingoes were either identical to or differing by a single substitution from a single mtDNA type, A29. This mtDNA type, which was present in >50% of the dingoes, was found also among domestic dogs, but only in dogs from East Asia and Arctic America, whereas 18 of the 19 other types were unique to dingoes. The mean genetic distance to A29 among the dingo mtDNA sequences indicates an origin ≈5,000 years ago. From these results a detailed scenario of the origin and history of the dingo can be derived: dingoes have an origin from domesticated dogs coming from East Asia..."
Narrow genetic basis for the Australian dingo confirmed throughanalysis of paternal ancestry. Savolainen, 2012.
"Studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)imply that the current dingo population was founded by asmall population of already tamed dogs from SoutheastAsia. However, the maternal genetic data might give aunilateral picture, and the gene pool has yet to be screenedfor paternal ancestry. We sequenced 14,437 bp of theY-chromosome (Y-chr) from two dingoes and one NewGuinea Singing Dog (NGSD). This positioned dingo andNGSD within the domestic dog Y-chr phylogeny, andproduced one haplotype not detected before. With this data,we characterized 47 male dingoes in 30 Y-chr single-nucleotide polymorphism sites using protease-mediatedallele-specific extension technology. Only two haplotypes,H3 and H60, were found among the dingoes, at frequenciesof 68.1 and 31.9 %, respectively, compared to 27 haplo-types previously established in the domestic dog. While H3is common among Southeast Asian dogs, H60 was specif-ically found in dingoes and the NGSD, but was related toSoutheast Asian dog Y-chr haplotypes. H3 and H60 wereobserved exclusively in the western and eastern parts ofAustralia, respectively, but had a common range in South-east. Thus, the Y-chr diversity was very low, similar toprevious observations for d-loop mtDNA. Overall geneticevidence suggests a very restricted introduction of the firstdingoes into Australia, possibly from New Guinea. Thisstudy further confirms the dingo as an isolated feral dog."
Mitochondrial DNA data indicate an introduction through Mainland Southeast Asia for Australian dingoes and Polynesian domestic dogs. Wilton, Savolainen 2011
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/09/06/rspb.2011.1395
"...dogs were one of three domesticates brought with the colonization of Polynesia, but the introduction routes to this region remain unknown. This also relates to questions about human history, such as to what extent the Polynesian culture was introduced with the Austronesian expansion from Taiwan or adopted en route, and whether pre-Neolithic Australia was culturally influenced by the surrounding Neolithic world. We investigate these questions by mapping the distribution of the mtDNA founder haplotypes for dingoes (A29) and ancient Polynesian dogs (Arc1 and Arc2) in samples across Southern East Asia (n = 424) and Island Southeast Asia (n = 219). All three haplotypes were found in South China, Mainland Southeast Asia and Indonesia but absent in Taiwan and the Philippines, and the mtDNA diversity among dingoes indicates an introduction to Australia 4600�18 300 years BP."
Clearly, all available DNA evidence puts the dingo breeds squarely into the "dog" clade; they are in agreement that Australian dingoes and NGSD are descended from domesticated East Asian dogs, although the year and route are still under investigation. There is no controversy that dingoes descended from previously-domesticated dogs from southeast Asia, and are therefore (by definition) feral dogs.
Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog. Vila, Savolainen, Wayne 1997
�All analyses supported a grouping of dog haplotypes into four distinct clades, although the topology within and among clades differed among trees (13). As exemplified by the neighbor-joining analysis (Fig. 2A), three of the four monophyletic clades defined a larger clade containing all but three dog haplotypes and a subset of wolf haplotypes (W4 and W5). 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 dog, African basenji, and greyhound (14). Clade II included dog haplotype D8, from two Scandinavian breeds (elkhound and j�mthund), 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.�
SIMILARITIES to other dogs:
Phenotypically, behaviourally, and historically, all of these breeds (and more) bear great similarity to the dingo breeds...all are along the same continuum, with no grounds for singling any one geographic variant out.
INdog http://padsociety.org/breed-profiles/indog/
Basenji http://www.basenji.de/englisch/Egeschich/geschi.htm
Canaan http://padsociety.org/breed-profiles/canaan-dog/
Santal hound http://indog.co.in/the_santal_hound.pdf
Jindo http://treasuredk9s.org/history-of-the-jindo/
Shikoku http://www.shikokudog.com/history
Shiba http://japanesedogs.bulldoginformation.com/shiba-inu.html
AfriCanis http://www.africanis.co.za/
Telomian dog http://piperbasenji.blogspot.in/2012/03/telomians.html
"Carolina dog" https://theloveofadog.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/breed-all-about-it-the-carolina-dog/ http://www.carolinadogs.org/news/wildcanid.html
Thai Ridgeback: http://www.thaidog.org/trd_history.html
Thai dingo: https://booksforever1blog.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/thai-dingo-thai-dog/
All of the ancient, indigenous breeds are of the LTPM (long term pariah morphtype) and are genetically distinct from other dogs.
Article about an African Village dogs study: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090804165210.htm and the resulting paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/33/13903.full?sid=0f548b82-c27b-4995-8c6e-d9fd1de1c8d3
PHOTO comparisons of primitive breeds:
New Guinea Singing Dog: 
Desert dingo: 
Alpine dingo: 
(It's been said that there may be more phenotypic distance between different varieties of Australian dingo, than from dingoes to other similar pariahs!)
Korean Jindos: 
INdogs: 
Canaan dog: 
AfriCanis: 
Carolina Dogs: 
Kishu Ken: .jpg)
Shikoku: 
Jomon Shiba Inu: 
(Shibas come in the same 3 basic colours as the dingo): 
Years of SELECTIVE BREEDING in various dog breeds/types:
Australian dingoes: unknown, but over 100 years, as evidenced by this advert for puppies for sale in 1911. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/117997916
NGSD: over 60 years in the USA, & over 40 years as pet/companion dogs. http://www.newguineasingingdoginternational.com/history.htm
Basenji: about 70 yrs.
Canaan dog: 60-70 yrs.
AfriCanis, INdog, etc: never--they are landraces, with no selective breeding. They have been shaped by nature alone for thousands of years.
Shikoku: about 70 years.
Korean Jindo: officially less than 20 yrs. UKC accepted them in 1998; first brought into Korea in the 1970's.
Carolina Dog: 40 years from wild-caught.
Dog breeds such as the Basenji, Canaan, and Carolina dog have a population in the wild to this day, & new wild-caught founders are currently still introduced to the papered breed from time to time. INdogs, AfriCanis, and village dogs are still free ranging populations, although they live amongst humans. There's far too much overlap for dingoes to be singled out.
Dog breeding REGISTRIES listing NGSD and/or Dingo:
NGSD were once recognized as a breed by several registries; some have now gone out of business or dropped the Singer, but others still list them as a dog breed. Aussie Dingoes, too, are listed as a dog breed by the Australian National Kennel club and other sites.
Some examples: CKC (a major US registry) https://www.continentalkennelclub.com/breed/?id=596
ARBA (American Rare Breed Association), whose new flash site won't load for me (?) but older versions show the NGSD--scroll down to Primitives: http://web.archive.org/�//www.arba.org/Recognized_Breeds.htm
American Canine Association http://acabreeds.com/breed/new-guinea-singing-218.aspx
UKC used to list them until recently: http://web.archive.org/�/Sighth�/NewGuineaSingingDog.std.htm
The Dingo listed on the Aussie KC site: http://ankc.org.au/Breed/Detail/127
NGSD are still registered with Barnhunt and Cynosport Rally.
NGSD is a breed category in the largest health database, Orthopedic Foundation for animals. https://secure.offa.org/search.html
SUGGESTED DIFFERENCES attributed to the NGSD
-One litter per year (like CDs, Tibetan mastiffs, Basenji, pariah dogs�males are fertile year round)
-Don't bark (like Basenjis, free ranging & indigenous dogs)
-Flexible (varies only in degree, although Shiba Inus can perform the "head flip" as done by NGSD and AUD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL6txm1IsD0 )
-More copies of the starch-digesting enzyme (amylase) than most wolves, who often have only two copies. (Dingoes and Siberian huskies have little to no increase in copies--other dogs vary from 8 to 30 copies. Source: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016)
-Tree climbing (pitbulls like Tret https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXElh_VM0Uc are good at that; so are Catahoulas. Telomian dogs are also noted tree climbers)
-Regurgitate food (not uncommon in dogs: http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/0168-1591(95)00556-8/abstract)
-Extremely intelligent & independent (this is subjective and only varies by degree; primitive and feral dogs tend to retain their intellect more than highly refined pet breeds)
-High prey drive (common in primitive breeds, terriers, ferals)
-Cheek rub
-Tooth gnashing (common in GSDs)
-Auto erotic stimulation (Disturbingly, dogs do this too; Youtube will turn up results but consider yourself warned.)
-Hind foot kickwrestling often seen in puppies (I assume this is the "butt slam"? If so, I've shown photos to domestic dog folks of wolfdogs doing it, and they report some dogs do as well.)
-Inability to lay their ears flat back against the sides of the skull
-Several of their vocalizations
-The "open mouth play bite" frequently used by NGSDs has been observed in coyotes
-Lower threshold: i.e. scent rolling when compared to domestic dogs (varies only in degree but this is common in dogs)
-A developmentally earlier appearance (i.e. hackle biting at three weeks compared to wolves and DD at six weeks)
-Reduced expression of intraspecific affiliative behaviors compared to wolves and DD (dingoes definitely show a degradation of social skills as compared to wolves, who must cooperate to hunt...however, many dog breeds have atrophied social cooperation and communication skills)
2014 PROPOSAL of the dingo as a separate species:
*A note on the recent skull-measurements study entitled, "An updated description of the Australian dingo ", Crowther, 2014. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jzo.12134/abstract
While many online articles have been written proclaiming the dingo as a distinct species, "Canis dingo", based on this study...those bloggers are simply hopeful agents of social change, not accurate reporters of the dingo's current status. The dingo's current status in Australia is: Canis familliaris. The domestic dog--whose breed standard exists here with the Kennel Club. http://ankc.org.au/Breed/Detail/127 They provide an explanation for their position:
"The systematic position of the dingo is currently unresolved, with no consensus at species and subspecies levels. The dingo is variously referred to as Canis lupus, Canis lupus dingo, Canis familiaris and Canis familiaris dingo in the literature (see for recent examples Van Dyck & Strahan 2008, Woinarski et al. 2014, Jackson & Groves 2015). In addition, there are various taxonomic synonyms for dingoes (examples include Canis dingo Meyer, 1793; Canis antarticus Kerr, 1792; Canis australiae Gray, 1826 and others documented herein). Currently, there is evidence to support the contention that dingoes are an introduced species from a relatively small founder population, as evidenced in the restricted gene flow observed in mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes of dingoes (Savolainen et al. 2004, Ardalan et al. 2012). While there has been recent research on the morphology of dingoes and domestic dogs (i.e., Crowther et al. 2014), the results presented substantial overlap in the morphometric comparison, which does not support dingoes as being a different species from dogs as postulated. Moreover, dingoes readily hybridise with dogs (Woinarski et al. 2014), and the genetics of dingoes align more closely with domestic dogs than with wolves (Savolainen et al. 2004, Ardalan et al. 2012). Hence the current taxonomic treatment for dingoes is Canis familliaris, not C. lupus, or C. dingo. Subspecies status is currently unresolved." Source: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/taxa/Canis_familiaris
The paper itself does not in any way "prove" that a dingo is anything but a domestic dog. Oversimplified, but in essence: the authors simply compared skull measurements from museum dingoes, dogs, and wolves--then decided that since, in general, the dingo skulls were larger than those of similarly sized dogs but smaller than wolves, they should be their own species. They DO present various methods for distinguishing purebred dingoes from dingo-modern dog mixes...criteria that can prove a dog 'is not a purebred dingo', but not criteria that shows 'a dingo is not a dog'! There is far too much overlap, in phenotype, behaviour & DNA.
The author explains the ecological value of the dingo (with which I wholeheartedly agree!) and mourns the fact that, since they are a dog, they are undervalued and treated as an invasive pest (although they have been there far longer than the TRUE invasive species: sheep, humans, cats, and foxes). However, political benefit is not a valid reason to deny genetics. The dingo can, and should, be protected no matter what its taxon!
He concludes,"Hence, we argue that because the ancestry of the dogs and dingoes is unknown, and because the dingo was first described as a distinctive wild form and differs from wolves, New Guinea singing dogs and domestic dogs in many behavioural, morphological and molecular characteristics (Macintosh, 1975; Corbett, 1995; Wilton et al., 1999), and they are effectively reproductively isolated in undisturbed natural environments and thus like C. hallstromi can be considered a distinct taxon (Koler-Matznick et al., 2003). Furthermore, because the dingo was first described as C. dingo Meyer 1793, and this decision was later upheld by ICZN (1957), we propose that C. dingo is the correct binomial." -Paraphrased, "We can't prove for certain what a dingo is, the first guy who saw one called it a "wild dog" and named it 'C. dingo', their skulls are different [actually not--they are within range of dogs], and they had been reproductively isolated from other dogs...so let's just go with what Meyer said in 1793."
Dr. Corbett previously did a similar study, and found nothing worthy of distinction. http://www.ecosmagazine.com/?act=view_file&file_id=EC55p32.pdf
What is the time frame for DOMESTICATION?
Rats (a simpler animal, I know) were captured for food & rat-killing games in the 1700's, and they had domestic (tame, multi-colored ) ones already by the 1800's.
The first captive-bred hamsters were captured in the 1930�s.
Belyaev only started on his foxes in the 50's (the same time frame as NGSD in the United States--and starting with *wild* animals, not previously domesticated feral dogs) and their current status is "domesticated ". More detail on how quickly behavioural change was inherited in that study: �As a result of such a rigorous selection, the offspring exhibiting the aggressive and fear avoidance responses were eliminated from the experimental population in just two-three generations of selection. In the fourth selected generation, there appeared pups that responded to human by dog-like tail wagging. The offspring of the next selected generations displayed more and more dog-like behavior. In the sixth generation, there appeared pups that eagerly sought contacts with human, not only wagging, also whining, whimpering, and licking in a dog-like manner. Such foxes were assigned to the elite of domestication.� That is less time than NGSD/AUD have been selectively bred in captivity�and the dingo breeds were domesticated (feral) dogs to start with! Source: Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model. Trut, 2009. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763232/
Apparently, domestication doesn't take very long at all, if you are applying aggressive artificial selection. (Selection is absolutely necessary--it's been noted that simply keeping animals in captivity is not enough.
Legal precedent set by FERALS in the USA:
While free-living dogs (pigs, mustangs, etc) are often referred to as �wild dogs� (pigs, mustangs, etc) in casual conversation, all of these previously domesticated species are actually just feral.
You can catch a feral cat out of the wild, bring it into your home and it is 'domestic'. You can catch a feral Mustang whose ancestors have been wild for four to five hundred years and add it to your corral, and it is 'domestic'.
You can catch a Basenji or a Canaan dog from the wild, which has been free-living without human interference for thousands of years, and add it directly to the established domestic dog breed. By these criteria, even a wild-caught dingo pup would be considered "domestic"...let alone one who has been intentionally bred in captivity with humans for 50+ years.
Domestic ferrets also show the 30% reduced brain size as compared to the wild variant (https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/225446307_Effects_ of_domestication_on_brain_ structure_and_behavior_in_ mammals ), are less fearful, less territorial, come in varying colours, have even picked up eye contact with humans and a response to human pointing cues (!) (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/ferrets-mans-other-best-friend/ )and show destabilisation of the reproductive cycle (multiple heats/pregnancies instead of a short, concrete breeding season). Similarly, some New Guinea dogs come into heat every 4 to 6 months, having only a "preference" for a season, like feral cats do. Australian dingoes have been born in almost every month, and in some areas, the males are fertile year round. Likewise, when ferrets were released in New Zealand, they out-competed the other species and became a top predator.
Feral pigs, living in the wild for over 500 years, can also be plucked from the wild and considered domestic pets. http://www.wideopenspaces.com/wild-pigs-as-pets/
"Mustang advocates are adamant the wild horse is a bona fide North American wildlife species � on par with deer, elk, bison and pronghorn. Scientists, ever the party poopers, beg to differ." (Does that sound familiar??)
"So does the label really matter?
Some advocates argue it does, feeling that formal designation as a native North American species would entitle mustangs to more stringent protection."
"In wild species, nature selects for traits that best equip an animal for survival. But when humans are involved, we select for traits that meet our needs � a practice dubbed selective breeding. A new study in Nature suggests that by domesticating animals (dogs, in this case), we actually cause changes in their genetic hardwiring."
PERMANENT changes. Dingoes can never go back to the wolf. When a modified domestic dog escapes into the wild and breeds unrestricted for generations, he turns back into the pariah dog type and resembles a dingo--not a wolf.
"In the Pryor Mountains of Montana, for example, the Bureau of Land Management posts signage asking visitors not to approach the horses � because visitors can approach the horses. That approachability is a non-reversible remnant of domestication."
Even though mustangs are not a native wild species � they are feral � most will agree America�s mustangs are a species of cultural importance, and one that deserves protection as such."
https://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/horselaw/mustang.htm
Feral mustangs are legally "domestic", at least for liability purposes. Some points of interest from the article:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines wild as "Occurring, growing, or living in a natural state; not domesticated, cultivated, or tamed."[FN-16] Blacks Law Dictionary defines wild animals as "Animals in a untamable disposition; animals in a state of nature." The same source defines a domestic animal as "Such as are habituated to live in or about the habitations of men, or such as contribute to the support of a family. Tamed animals; e.g., horses, sheep, dogs."
***(2) Are gentled and trained mustangs, at most, more wild and dangerous than horses in general?
So, ARE multigenerational captive-bred, feral, previously domesticated primitive breed dogs more dangerous than "dogs as a whole"? Of course not. As far as I know, there are no dog bites ever recorded from either dingo breed, in the USA.
DOMESTICATION:
Domestication (from Latin domesticus) is the process whereby a population of living organisms is changed at the genetic level, through generations of selective breeding, to accentuate traits that ultimately benefit humans. A usual by-product of domestication is the creation of a dependency in the domesticated organisms, so that they lose their ability to live in the wild.[1] It differs from taming in that a change in the phenotypical expression and genotype of the animal occurs, whereas taming is simply an environmental socialization/behavioral trait; the process by which animals become accustomed to human presence. In the Convention on Biological Diversity, a domesticated species is defined as a "species in which the evolutionary process has been influenced by humans to meet their needs."[2] Therefore, a defining characteristic of domestication is artificial selection by humans.
http://www.worldlibrary.org/arti.../domestication_of_animals
Note that its primary feature is a *lasting physical change*--i.e. they don't revert back to wild animals as soon as you stop selecting artificially. Once domesticated, it is FOREVER changed...regardless if it returns to a feral state.
An excellent quote from a primitive dog caretaker: "The breeding of what is loosely referred to as New Guinea Singing Dogs has been in the hands of humans for many years, perhaps even thousands of years if native New Guineans are involved. This slow and ever evolving human manipulation has resulted in the formation of a group of canines who all share the same characteristics. Domestication is the key word. These animals who may or may not have evolved from domesticated canines even before their introduction to New Guinea have, perhaps come full circle going from a domestic animal to a feral domestic dog to a sub-species in their own right back to a newly formed domestic animal. This has been a slow and long termed process taking many, many generations of selective breeding by humans first, nature second and humans in the third level. What we are now encountering is a group of dogs so alike, so same, that they are similar behaviorally, genetically, and visibly. If the key to all this is human manipulation and/or selective breeding by humans, there is no doubt due to the small ancestral base available to human breeders. It has been evolution not necessarily by design but by limitations. In many cases this evolution has been intentional...the breeding of brother to sister, father to daughter and other inbreeding techniques have left us with a legacy of sameness. A sameness, a sharing of characteristics engineered by the very people who have strived to preserve. Yes, we have preserved, we have preserved so well that we have, in fact created a new breed of domesticated dog."
Singers regularly live successfully as household companions, as do Aussie dingoes. Any dingo breed owner can tell you, they come pre-programmed with traits such as:
-eye contact with humans
-a deep love of people, and natural affinity for children�socialised dingoes crave human contact
-the ability to read our faces and our emotions
-inhibited bite towards people�this in innate, and applies when the dog is not properly socialised
-a natural instinct to look to us for direction, and 'ask people for help'
The partnership between humans and dogs (including NGSD and AUD) is readily apparent, through the presence of all these �dog behaviours�. They are said to be the defining traits that distinguish wolf from dog. Source: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/dogs-but-not-wolves-use-humans-as-tools/
Again, domestication causes PERMANENT changes. See "islands of domestication" http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/taming-pig-took-some-wild-turns or the "imprint of domestication" (Zeder 2012) for further explanation.
From: "Pathways to Domestication", Zeder,2012. http://anthropology.si.edu/archaeobio/cm/Zeder%20Geptsetal%202012.pdf
"The lasting impact of the changes associated with domestication in animals can be clearly seen in feral animals that have left the domestic relationship and have reverted to living in a wild state. Sometimes referred to as a process of domestication in reverse, feralization is often looked to as a model for understanding the nature and permanence of the changes associated with domestication (Letts 1964,Hale 1969, Brisbin 1974, Price 1984, 1999, 2002)."
"Domestication-induced changes in brain size and function may well be irreversible. Feral dogs, cats, goats, donkeys, and ferrets that have lived outside of a direct association with humans for many generations show no sign of regaining the brain mass (Herre and Ro�hrs 1990, Birks and Kitchener 1999). Wild mouflon (Ovis orientalis musimon) on Mediterranean islands that a combination of morphological, cytological and genetic studies confirm are the feralized descendents of the domestic stock of Neolithic colonizers (Nadler et al. 1973, Poplin et al. 1986, Bruford and Townsend 2006) retain the smaller brain size of their domestic ancestors even though they look in every other regard like wild sheep (Groves Pathways to Animal Domestication 1989). Dingos (Canis familiaris dingo) in Australia and New Guinea, which have been living outside of a domestic relationship for thousands of years, have the same brain size as domestic dogs (Schultz 1969)."
Dingo brains have been measured to be approximately 30% the size of Northern wolves, which translates to 20-25% the size of Southern wolves (Canis lupus pallipes), the same as any other domestic dog. Reverting to a feral state has NOT given the dingo a wild animal's brain--the changes from domestication have been retained, per Dollo�s Law.
Also see �Wild is not really wild: brain weight of wild domestic mammals�, Rohrs, 1999 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472721
Maintaining a wild species' brain size appears to be a "use it or lose it" trait; selection very early on reduces the brain to ~ -20% and it STAYS smaller forever. It is most likely a response to lower reactivity & wariness, less competition, & the more effortless life of captivity. Changes are especially apparent in the limbic system.
Also consider this paper on feralization.
Other signs of �domestication syndrome� include a reduced flight distance and adrenal response, changes in pigmentation (for example, dingoes have dog pigmentation�solid colours with white markings�rather than the well-blended agouti of wild species), and a faster social and sexual maturation. See: The �Domestication Syndrome� in Mammals. Wilkins 2014 http://www.genetics.org/content/197/3/795
NGSD routinely evict their offspring as early as 5 to 6 months of age. See: http://newguinea-singing-dog-conservation.org/Tidbits/Denning.pdf Anecdotally, Australian dingo pups also become independent (and may be driven off) at that same age, although dingoes are a flexible predator who sometimes maintains family packs, for the cooperative hunting of larger game. Is the early maturation--earlier, even, than many other domestic dogs(!), a side effect of the reproductive isolation of the dingo breeds, as a trait selected for by domestication grows more and more concentrated within the small gene pool?
When returned to the wild, feral pigs quickly grow hair and tusks...but like other feralized species, their brain stays small (domestic size). Likewise, dingoes' teeth have enlarged somewhat during their re-acclimation to living in the wild, the tooth size falling in between those of wolves and domestic dogs...but their brain size--like eye contact, affinity for humans, and ease of socialisation compared to true wild canids--was a more permanent change.
Altered social skills are another side effect of domestication:
"Whereas wolves live in single family packs with established hierarchical social structure, feral dogs live in fluid groups made up of breeding pairs. The size of these groups is limited by the lack of social structure and other social bonds that keep wolf packs operating as functional units. Although feral dogs generally have larger litters and breed more frequently than wolves, they lack the parenting skills of wolves, often leaving very young pups unattended, resulting in high juvenile mortality. Older feral pups also suffer higher mortality rates than wolf pups of comparable age when they leave the den to explore and forage on their own or when their mother enters a new oestrous cycle and loses interest in her most recent litter. " -Zeder.
This partial degradation of the wolf's abilities applies to the dingo breeds as well. However, environmental selection may also play a large part, as animals who do not need to "pack up" to hunt large prey do not need to maintain a complex social code and familial structure.
In SUMMARY:
Available DNA results, phenotypes, history, and behaviour all consistently agree that the indigenous dingo breeds are domesticated dogs who migrated to Australia and New Guinea from southeast Asia. Upon returning to a free-living state, they reverted to the typical long-term pariah morph type, tailored to their specific climate and environment, as dogs have done on every continent but Antarctica. They have retained their state of domestication, as evidenced by their domestic morphological traits and full array of human-centric inborn behaviours. Therefore, the most logical and scientific choice would be to restore their taxonomical designation to include them with all related dogs, most likely as Canis familiaris, to match their species designation in the dingo�s homeland of Australia. (If further sub-speciation is desired, individual native dogs could be designated as Canis familiaris dingo, Canis familiaris Hallstromi, perhaps Canis familiaris Afrikanis for the Basenji and related dogs, Canis familiaris pallipes for the Indian village dogs, and so on.)
These aboriginal dogs are our best link to the past, where the incredible journey between man and dog began. Isolated native populations on all continents deserve special protections, not only for their tremendous research value, but out of respect for our shared evolutionary path and the ancient bond between our species. We grew up together--and that alone is all the reason we need to conserve and value these incredible native dogs now.
*Tech note to zookeepers from USDA:
April 2016
New Classification of the Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) formerly included the Dingo and New Guinea
Singing Dog in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) definition of �dog,� and regulated these
animals under the standards for the humane handling and care of dogs (Subpart A). In
2003, the dog was reclassified from Canis familiaris to Canis lupus familiaris, and the Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog became classified as Canis lupus dingo.
Based on these changes,USDA will now include the Dingo and the New Guinea Singing Dog in the regulatory definition of �exotic animal,� and regulate these animals under the standards for all �other
animals�(Subpart F) along with the coyote or African Wild Dog.
This document replaces the July 14, 1993, memo entitled �Regulation of the Dingo, Canaan
Dog, New Guinea Singing Dog, and the Carolina Dog under the Animal Welfare Act.�
(Note: The Canaan Dog and the Carolina Dog remain classified as Canis familiaris or Canis
lupus familiaris, and continue to fall in the regulatory definition and standards for �dog.�)
Factors considered:
The AWA (7 U.S.C. � 2132(g)) and Code of Federal Regulations (9 C.F.R. � 1.1)
define �animal,� �dog,� and �exotic animal,� as follows:
Animal means any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal),
guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may
determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation,
or exhibition purposes, or as a pet; ��
Dog means any live or dead dog (Canis familiaris) or any dog-hybrid cross.�
Exotic animal means any animal not identified in the definition of �animal� provided
in this part that is native to a foreign country or of foreign origin or character, is not
native to the United States, or was introduced from abroad�
The Dingo is a wild dog native to Australia and Thailand, and the New Guinea Singing Dog
is a wild dog native to Papua New Guinea. Although the Dingo and New Guinea Singing
Dog are descended from the same prehistoric dog ancestor as domesticated dogs,
the animals have a long history of isolation and of living independently from humans.
The resulting genetic differences currently appear to be accepted by most of the scientific
community as being sufficient to classify them as a separate subspecies.
The currently most accepted taxonomic classification for both the Dingo and the New
Guinea Singing Dog is Canis lupus dingo.
When New Guinea Singing Dog is classified separately from the Dingo, the classification is usually Canis lupus hallstromi.
References
1. Animal Welfare Act and Regulations (Blue book)
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/Animal%20Care%20Blue%20Book%20-
%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf
2. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
https://archive.org/stream/bulletinofzoolog602003int/bulletinofzoolog602003int_djvu.txt
3. Wilson and Reeder�s Mammal Species of the World,
http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswCFApp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=11374
4. http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/actionplans/canids.pdf
5. http://www.eol.org/pages/10564679/names
6. The Dingo may be derived from the New Guinea Singing Dog,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3386486/