Trigger Warning: Community contains mostly bad environmental news (not by choice!). Community may also feature stories about animal agriculture and/or meat. Until tagging is available, please be aware and click accordingly.

🪲

Aussie Zone Rules.

Golden rule - be nice. If you wouldn’t say it in front of your ~~grandmother~~ favourite tree, don’t post it.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. You are allowed to denigrate invasive plants or animals.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here. Except invasive plants or animals.
No porn. Except photos of plants. Definitely not animals.
No Ads / Spamming. Except for photos or stories about plants and animals.
Nothing illegal in Australia. Like invasive plants or animals. Exotic microbes and invasive fungi also not welcome.
Make post titles descriptive with no swear words. Comments are a free for all using the above rules as a guide. Fuck invasive plants and animals.

🐝

/c/Aussie Environment acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, sea and waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and pay our respects to their Elders past and present.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone

For decades, people have believed this dingo myth. DNA testing has revealed the truth (www.smh.com.au)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone to c/environment@aussie.zone

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

archive.org.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The article focuses a lot on the idea that dingoes should be considered a native species because (a) their purity is higher than often thought, and (b) even if their purity isn't that high, they're still dingoes and very distinct from wild dogs.

But what goes basically ignored is the fact that dingoes aren't a distinct species. As the article says, they diverged from dogs "more than 5,000 years ago". Evolutionarily speaking, that isn't very long. It might be long enough to distinguish dingoes from other dogs even though you can't distinguish a rottweiler from a pug. But it's not long enough to speciate. It is certainly not enough time for the actual native species of Australia to have evolved adaptations. Dingoes are not native species in the way possums, kookaburras, and echidnas are. Heck, they haven't even been here for anywhere near as long as humans have. About 1/10th as long, in fact.

[–] Droechai@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Are you saying that I'm not a different species from an Asian person even though our forefathers diverged geographically thousands of years ago?

Edit: /s

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

well no, you're not. You're both homo sapiens

[–] Droechai@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, forgot a /s in my post. It's added now

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 3 points 7 months ago

Cheers