New Guinea Singing Dog - Origin and Taxonomic Status

Origin and Taxonomic Status

For these dogs an origin in Indonesia or South-East Asia is likely; however, the exact location and date is unknown. Genetic analyses also indicate towards an origin in East Asia. These dogs were most likely brought to Papua New Guinea by humans; the dogs could not have covered the distance between the islands by swimming, since even at lowest sea level the distance would have been too great. Findings indicate that there were dogs about 5,500 years ago, which at least looked similar to the Singers.

As stated earlier there is controversy regarding the origin of New Guinea Dingoes. Singers may have been transported to New Guinea as a tamed wild animal to serve as a hunting aid or as human food. There is no proof for domestication and they do not show the characteristic morphological features of domestication. Singers may have developed blood enzymes specific to the breed after arriving in New Guinea or they may have inherited them from a different ancestor than those of modern domestic dogs. While interbreeding between Singers and other domestic dogs has occurred, this does not support their being the same species, since all members of the genus Canis are capable of producing fertile hybrids. Genetically and ecologically the New Guinea Singing Dog is not replaceable with any other canid-population and the available data indicates that the New Guinea Singing Dog demonstrates a unique evolutionary entity, possible a sister-taxon of the Australian Dingo. Since the Singer has diagnostic characteristics that differentiate it from other members of the genus Canis, the name Canis hallstromi is used to identify it as a distinguishable taxonomic entity inside the genus Canis. Although these hypothoses are based on captive Singers, it is assumed that the described, regarded as unique, characteristics probably could not have developed during captivity. It is further suspected that these dogs would be an example on how dogs looked in the time before domestication and that their keeping by the inhabitants of Papua New Guinea would not fully match the common concept of domestication. In addition the ecological balance between the Singers and their prey is regarded as evidence that these dogs were not domesticated when they arrived on the island. As a further argument against the status of the Singer as a feral domestic dog, Koler-Matznick states that there exist no reports of demographically self-sustaining feral dog populations that are not at least partially dependent on humans. Even in the absence of other large predators, domestic dogs never become totally independent predators.

Kristofer M. Helgen disagreed. He said that these dogs are biologically interesting and deserve further ecological study, but neither molecular nor morphological evidence support the claim for taxonomic status as a separate species, particularly in the light of the morphological plasticity of the domesticated dog.