An evaluation of genetic analyses, skull morphology and visual appearance for assessing dingo purity: implications for dingo conservation

The introgression of domestic dog genes into dingo populations threatens the genetic integrity of 'pure' dingoes. However, dingo conservation efforts are hampered by difficulties in distinguishing between dingoes and hybrids in the field. This study evaluates consistency in the status of hybridisation (i.e. dingo, hybrid or dog) assigned by genetic analyses, skull morphology and visual assessments. Of the 56 south-east Queensland animals sampled, 39 (69.6%) were assigned the same status by all three methods, 10 (17.9%) by genetic and skull methods, four (7.1%) by genetic and visual methods; and two (3.6%) by skull and visual methods. Pair-wise comparisons identified a significant relationship between genetic and skull methods, but not between either of these and visual methods. Results from surveying 13 experienced wild dog managers showed that hybrids were more easily identified by visual characters than were dingoes. A more reliable visual assessment can be developed through determining the relationship between (1) genetics and phenotype by sampling wild dog populations and (2) the expression of visual characteristics from different proportions and breeds of domestic dog genes by breeding trials. Culling obvious hybrids based on visual characteristics, such as sable and patchy coat colours, should slow the process of hybridisation.

Assessing the taxonomic status of dingoes Canis familiaris for conservation

1. The conservation status of the dingo Canis familiaris dingo is threatened by hybridization with the domestic dog C. familiaris familiaris. A practical method that can estimate the different levels of hybridization in the field is urgently required so that animals below a specific threshold of dingo ancestry (e.g. 1/4 or 1/2 dingoes) can reliably be identified and removed from dingo populations. 2. Skull morphology has been traditionally used to assess dingo purity, but this method does not discriminate between the different levels of dingo ancestry in hybrids. Furthermore, measurements can only be reliably taken from the skulls of dead animals. 3. Methods based on the analysis of variation in DNA are able to discriminate between the different levels of hybridization, but the validity of this method has been questioned because the materials currently used as a reference for dingoes are from captive animals of unproven genetic purity. The use of pre-European materials would improve the accuracy of this method, but suitable material has not been found in sufficient quantity to develop a reliable reference population. Furthermore, current methods based on DNA are impractical for the field-based discrimination of hybrids because samples require laboratory analysis. 4. Coat colour has also been used to estimate the extent of hybridization and is possibly the most practical method to apply in the field. However, this method may not be as powerful as genetic or morphological analyses because some hybrids (e.g. Australian cattle dog × dingo) are similar to dingoes in coat colour and body form. This problem may be alleviated by using additional visual characteristics such as the presence/absence of ticking and white markings.