Unser Haushund: Eine Spitzmaus im Wolfspelz? - Wolf-Ekkehard ...

310Nigel E. A. Crompton hat zur Grundtypfrage in seinem Beitrag A review ofselected features of the family Canidae with reference to its fundamentaltaxonomic status 588 (1993, pp. 218/219) für den folgenden Ansatz unter dem TitelHybrid relationships argumentiert (ähnlich Junker und Scherer zusammen mitFehrer und Winkler 2006, p. 39 589 ):"An important question to clarify concerning the dogs is do they belong to some fundamental taxonomicunit. In this respect, the concept of the basic type as a group of inter-fertile species is very useful (SCHERER1993). One of the early species definitions made "ability to hybridize" a requirement. Only those animalswhich could hybridize belonged to the same species. In many cases, however, animals can hybridize successfullyeven with species from another genus. It is more appropriate to use the hybridization criteria for a highertaxonomic level. Nevertheless, as a group of animals evolves the karyotype does not always remain static. Thiscan quickly lead to prenatal mortality or at best hybrid sterility. Various other mechanisms of incompatibility canarise. 590 With these limitations in mind, it is felt sufficient to demonstrate that hybridization across themajor dog groups occurs and that some hybridization amongst the groups occurs. These clear factswould indicate that dogs belong to a single basic type.Gray's checklist of mammalian hybrids (Gray 1972) provides an excellent starting point. Many crosses havebeen attempted between Canis[lupus] familiaris and wild dogs, see table 2.As Canis [lupus] familiaris is descended from Canis lupus it is perhaps not surprising that hybrids havebeen reported between these animals. Of more specific interest are the crosses with Cerdocyon thous,which belongs to the South American canids, and crosses with the two Vulpes, fox, species. Thesecrosses demonstrate that hybridizations amongst the major dog groups are possible. Hybrids within the wolflikecanids are expected to be fertile, they all have 78 chromosomes. Nevertheless, attempts to cross Canisfamiliaris with Cuon alpinus have so far been unsuccessful. Successful intra-Canis crosses have beenreported. Amongst the fox-like canids two intergeneric crosses have been reported, see table 2. 591No crosses with other carnivores are known, at least none which can be taken seriously (Gray 1972) 592 .”Mit diesem Ansatz im Sinn (siehe dazu auch Lönnig 2002) lassen sichmöglicherweise drei Grundtypen (primäre Arten) in der Familie der Canidaeunterscheiden, die im genetischen Potenzial den geologisch fast gleichzeitig588 Crompton, N. E. A. (1993): A review of selected features of the family Canidae with reference to its fundamental taxonomic status. In: S.Scherer (Hg.):Typen des Lebens. Pascal Verlag Berlin.589 Junker, R. und S. Scherer (2006): Evolution – Ein kritisches Lehrbuch. Weyel Biologie. 6. aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage. WeyelLehrmittelverlag Gießen.590 Siehe dazu ausführlich http://www.weloennig.de/Artbegriff.html, insbesondere die prä- und postzygotischen Isolationsmechanismen.591 Vgl. dazu die Details von A. P. Gray im Anhang 5.592 Die Arbeit von Annie P. Gray (1972) Mammalian Hybrids: A Checklist with Bibliography (390 pp.,Verlag: Commonwealth AgriculturalBureaux, Farnham Royal, Slough SL2 3BN, England), 2. Auflage, gehört bis auf den heutigen Tag zu den wissenschaftlich gründlichstenArbeiten, die zu dieser Thematik jemals publiziert worden sind. Vgl. Anhang 5