ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

New DNA data solves the mystery of the Falklands wolf that puzzled Darwin

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



falkland islands wolf dna darwinWhile visiting the rugged Falkland Islands in the 1830s, Charles Darwin puzzled over a local wolf that was the only endemic land-dwelling mammal and looked little like other canids on the mainland. By 1876, the Falklands wolf (Dusicyon australis) was extinct and with it threatened to go its mysterious history. But a new genetic analysis of five preserved specimens, published online last week in Current Biology, has chased away speculation about these baffling animals.

"How can something the size of a Labrador retriever end up on an island in sufficient numbers that a new population emerges and evolves into a new species," Robert Wayne, a professor of ecology and biology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and co-author of the paper, noted in a prepared statement.

By sequencing part of the mitochondrial genome from preserved specimens in London, Liverpool, Philadelphia and New Zealand, the researchers discovered that the closest living relative to the Falklands wolf is the South American maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus). As the paper authors noted, however, "both Darwin and [Robert] FitzRoy, [captain of the HMS Beagle on which Darwin made his famous voyage], were surprised by the striking differences between the Falklands wolf and the canids of the South American mainland," the former of which Darwin identified as a fox and the latter of which has quite long legs. The genetic analysis now pinpoints the species divergence at about 6.7 million years ago, long before either species had even migrated from North to South America.

So how did the wolves get to the isolated islands? Located about 480 kilometers from the cost of Argentina, swimming there is out of the question, and the islands themselves have never been a part of the South American mainland. The wolves must have arrived on ice floes or floating wood, the authors concluded. "A large, wolf-sized animal could perhaps live on a large iceberg with…enough prey to survive the voyage, where a vegetarian could not do that very well," Wayne said, also noting that they probably arrived on the islands "at least 70,000 years ago."

The curious canid holds a special place in the hearts of many evolutionary biologists, having been featured in Darwin’s notes from his travels on the Beagle and other early musings on evolution. After writing about the variety of animals in the Galapagos Islands, he noted: "The only fact of a similar kind of which I am aware is the constant asserted difference between the wolf-like fox of East & West Falkland [Islands]. If there is the slightest foundation for these remarks the zoology of Archipelagoes will be well worth examining; for such facts would undermine the stability of Species."

Image of the Falkland Islands wolf by George Mivart from his 1890 Dogs, Jackals, Wolves and Foxes: A Monograph of the Canidae





Rights & Permissions

Comments 7 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. foxtrot 10:01 am 11/14/2009

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDgO6NIXe0A

    Perhaps the indigenous South Americans introduced the wolf to Las Malvinas. Like the Australian aborigines did with the gingo, and much unlike the English who introduced the fox, just for "sport"!

    Link to this
  2. 2. foxtrot 6:46 pm 11/14/2009

    Typo! That should be Dingo, ahhh and don’t forget to check out the link, I reckon Darwin might have liked it. A sig. fraction of his voyage was spent within the Argentine Territory.

    Link to this
  3. 3. JamesDavis 8:10 am 11/15/2009

    If that species of wolf has been hanging around for 6.7 million years, then it probably traveled there on a land mass and when the ocean rose it was stuck and evolved to its current form. It would be nice if they can clone that species and bring it back.

    Link to this
  4. 4. proadventurer 11:49 am 11/15/2009

    Did you read the whole article?

    Link to this
  5. 5. Argie40 7:15 am 11/16/2009

    In 1833, Charles Darwin named this animal Canis australis. As there is a prerogative that stil stands as to not change names given by discoverers to newly discovered genus, species, &c., under what pretences was the same animal given such a different name (Dusicyon australis)? Wouldn’t it be more fair that Darwin was mentioned on the new name, say, Dusicyon darwinii australis?

    Link to this
  6. 6. Argie40 7:21 am 11/16/2009

    In 1833, Charles Darwin saw, described and named this animal Canis australis. As there is a prerogative, that still stands, as to not change names given by discoverers to newly discovered genus, species, &c., under what pretences was the same animal given such a different name (Dusicyon australis)? Or, if there was a substantial reason, wouldn’t it be fairer that Darwin was mentioned on the new name, say, Dusicyon darwinii australis?

    Link to this
  7. 7. wayel 1:35 pm 12/8/2009

    Hello,
    I greet all of you, and I respect all of your comments, as well as your opinions.

    I have read alot about evolution, which seems to be developing everyday.

    But I sometimes ask myself: What is the basis of evolution??

    Ofcourse, we all know the fact that whan a cell proliferates or divides, and subsequently produces a different number of chromosomes is mutated, and will eventually die.

    But, have looked at Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is the transform of champanzees ( a 48 chromosome organism) to human ( a 46 human organism)?
    And if this was true, where is the missing link between apes and humans??

    Why are apes still there, and not all of them evoluted to humans?

    Why dont we suggest in the first place the humans evoluted to champanzees???

    One onswer will eventually jumb to all of our brains, which is:

    ( ORGANISMS FROM DIFFERENT SETS OF CHROMOSOMES CAN NEVER EVOLUTE TO EACH OTHER)

    This is my hypothesis.

    If you have any comments, please elaborate and I respect and welcome all of your opinions

    Thanks for reading.
    Regards,
    Wayel

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Give a Gift &
Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now! >

X

Email this Article

X