MAMMALIAN SPECIES 1o.22.1-42 5 Canis rufus. By John L. Paradiso and Ronald M. Nowak. Publi shed 29 November 1972 by The American Si society of Mammalogists Canis rufus Audubon and Bachman, 1851 Red Wolf Lupus niger Bartram, 1791:199. Type locality, Alachua wvapna (now Payne's Prairie), Alachua Court, Florida. ‘The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 447, published 29 Janvary 1967, placed Bartram (1791) on its official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature (see Nowak, 1967). Canis inpus vat. rufus Audubon and Bachman, 1851, 2:240 “Type locality designated by Goldman (1957345) as 15 miles west of Auetin, Texas. Canis rufus: Bailey, 19052174, fret use of name combination. CONTEXT AND CONTENT. Order Carnivora, Family Canida, Subfamily Caninae, ‘Three subspocies are currently recognized (Goldman, 1997345) as fllowst C. r floridanus Milles, 1912:95, Type feom Horse Landing, ‘St Johns River, about 12 miles south of Palatka, Putnam Coxnty, Florida 1. gregoryi Goldman, 1987:48. Type from Macks Bayou, 3 ‘ales east of Tenaas River, 18 miles southwest of Tallulah, ‘Madison Parish, Louisiana 4, rafus Audubon and Bachman, 1851, Vol. 2:240, ee above. DIAGNOSIS. As noted by Goldman (Young and Gold ‘man, 1944:900), there is such s great degree of individual, igeographic, sexial, and age variation within each species of North American Canis, and such wide specif overlap In most characters, that much of the following diagnosis is necessarily ener and quale in nature. Bostic Hemiation of sex {mens often requires comparison with arge series. Measurements and ratios inthis diagnosis pertain to specimens in the United States National Museum ‘C-rajus is highly vasiable in all characters; the following, however, are the mest diagnostic. Skull narzow anc elongated with Tong, slendor rostrum, and flat frontal region: postorbital constrict relatively marrow and elongated; braincase rela Lively! small; sagittal crest usually welleveloped (sce figure 1). Canine teeth long and slender, gencrally eatending below the level of & line drawn across the anterior mental foramina when the. jaws are losed; pronounced deuteroeane ‘preset tn PH (capital initials indieate upper teeth); metaconule ‘welldeveloped on M1; pronounced cingulum on upper molar eth; M2" large. in_ proportion to size of skull Crypomatic Dreadeh averages 113 Limes greatest transverse diameter of M2 in 158 specimens), Greatest length of skull for adult specimens from Louisiana, Arkansas, and. Missouri, collected "prior to 1990, ranges from 2173 to 2610 mim for’ TA males, and from 2095 to 28720 mun for 69 females Compared with. C. larans, rufus is always larger, both ‘externally and cranially whem specimens of only one sex te ‘compared, (the geeatest length of skull of larans ranges from VARA to 2158 mm for 176.males and from T7L6 to 2065 for ANS females). “The sagittal crest in rufus invariably exhibits more pronounced development; the postorbital constriction is relutiely ‘marrower and more. clongited, and the braincase felatively smaller’ and. more. heavily owified. Tho M2. is Smaller In proportion to size of skull than in latrans.(xygomatie breadth averages 11.9. times greatest tansverse diameter of Mz measured. diagonally in 390. adult specimens of latrans collected throughost the range of the species). In all other ‘cranial and dental details, rufus and latrans show a eons resemblance to each other. Canis rufus resembles C. lupus in size (12 male. Jupus ange from 250.7 to 2869 mm, and 30 females from 2240 to 2775 mm in greatest length of skull) bot differs as follows: the Skull ix more slender and less massive (although in greatest Length arog ‘ull may ‘be longer): ostrom longer and narrower; canine teeth longer (in lupus they do not exten Below'a line drawn across the anterior mental foramina when the jaws ate closed); pronounced deuterocone present ot PA; metaconule well matked on M1; cingulum on upper role “he ME Farge im propor feof kul than In lupus (aygomatic breadth averages 98 times gretest trans verse diameter of M2 measured diagonally in 168 adult spe tens of fupus collected throughout the range of the specie). sim ri “ually an he erent ro familiar’ Uys combination of pelage, cratial, and. dent Cher raf he ten nals P, ty and M2) fre generally larger; canine teeth longer and more slender proportionally; rogram lave. longer and more slender, Und frootal region flatter. ‘The dometie dog fs such a variable imal; however, that somo spocies an elesely resemble any af the wild apetes of Novth American Canis ‘Other diferences and smilerties between rufus, latrans, lupus, and familias, are discussed by Goldman (Young and Goldinan, 1948) and Lawrence and Bosser (1961) GENERAL CHARACTERS. Doglike in general form, with size averaging intermediate between fupus and latrans, Tikough some large specimens of rufus overlap smeller spec. tens of Tapus in measurements and weight. Weights and Ieasurcments given in this section are bated on specimens and records in the United States National Museum or upon reports ip Bureau of Spot aberies ad Wilde Hogs the “Total leath of rufus ranges from about 1955 to 1680 mm (atrans abort 1080 {9 1320 mm, and lupus about 1870 to 2050 nm). ‘Recently collected. specimens ffom Chambers County, exas, measured between 1859 and 1493 mm an total length, Adult rufus clleeted in. Arkansas prior to 1930 weighed 3s fellows averages fllowed by extremes) :'23 males, 60, 45 to 60'Tbs (21 to AL ke); 34 females, 476, 36 to 65 Ube (16 to 29. kg). Six" apecimens weighed recently” (1970) by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and. Wildlife field agents in Chambers County, Texas, were between 45 and 62 Ibs, and averaged about 3 Ibs (24 ka). 'A recently collected (1970) inate and female from Galveston County, Texas, weighed 50 Ths ‘and’ 45" Ibs respectively, and. the largest “animal ftom Liberty. County” was’ 51 bs. One recently trapped (1970) Ghambers County male had’ a shoulder height of 28 ‘inches (07m. Young and. Goldman (1944:69) sated that the weight of fully mature Zapus fs between 60 sad 175 Ibs (27 fand 77 ky), whereas lavrane. generally ranges {rom 18 10.30 Is (8 to 14 kg) (Young and Jackson, 1951:48) ‘A detailed description of the coloration of rufus was iver by Goldman (Young and Goldman, 1994480). The Most common calor phase ina large series of rufus) skins (Gpecimnscolleeted prior to 1990 im Lauisiana, Texas, Okla homa, Arkansas and Missouri) appears more reddish and more spurcly haired than series of letrans and Lupus in comparable pelage. Nevertheless, individual skins of all thre, and some of Femur as well es be found that ace vitwallyindatinguith abte from one. another: coloration docs not appear to be agnostic character in North-American’ Gants, Both rufus fand lupus often cecur in a black color phase, but according io" Yotng, Noung, and Jackon, 85:58), "Bhack coloration is extremely rare among edyotes ‘Young (1946:36) stated with regard to rufus: “Ie i rather areyhound like in. appearance, with Tong, somewhat spindly een "Although there are actually’ no comparative measure. ments as yet to confirm this, Jong legs in rufus have. been Commented pon hy several field biologists of the Bureau of Spon Fisheries and Wildlife who have worked with the species recently nthe Texas Coast. Glynn A. Riley, Jr, Principal District Field Assistant for the Division of Wildlife Services, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Liberty, Texas, reported (Septeniier 1970), that the legs of rufus ave strikingly Tong tnd slender, giving the animal slmest the appearance of “being fin stita” ‘Riley also reported thet the eats of Pufus are Tar Targer in proportion to the size of the head than are the ears ofthe fetrane aad apts with which he has worked, DISTRIBUTION. Probably the original range of rufus coincided well with the Couisinian, Cafolinian, and TexanFicune 1. Skull of Canis rufus from Cook Station, Crawford Gounty, Missouri, collected on 2 April 1924 (USNM 244180) Drawings by Mrs. Wilma Martin. mammal provinces of Hagmeier (1966), but the species was fxtipated at such an carly date in the eastern United States that ie ip impossible to be certain, Specimens confirm that i formerly cecursed. in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi Lau lana, Arkaneas, southern Missouri, southern Indians, eastern Oldahoms, and casterm Texas (ac figure 2)- Goldman (Young and Goldman, 1944:486) aesigned a specimen from Wareaw, Hancock Counts, ines, and another supposedly from Wabach ‘Wabash County Tndana, to rajus and thus placed the linitso distribution ofthe species somewhat to far north The specimen from Iligis, in the collection of the American. Murcum of Natural History, was receled from C- K. Worthen, an animal dlaler whose hame was in THancock County, Iinos. Apparently the specimen, was a eaplive animal, and i is impossible to he ferain of the locality data” (E~ Raymond Tall personal ommunication), “The faded label of ‘the specimen trom ndiana shows that it was actually taken in the area of southern Indiana Th the wester part of the range of the species, Goldman (Young and. Goldman, 1944:188) sted a specimen of rufus from Sheffield (22 alles north), Pecos County, Texas. ‘This specimen is in the United States’ National Museum collection, fad is actually & coyote, C. letras, There is no evidence that Tajus ever oocured father west ia Texas than the Edwards Plates . rufus has been exterminated over most of its former range. At the present time it is known to cccur in is pute form (hybridization with Ferns is discuseed under section on Genetics) only inthe coastal. praiice and ‘marshes of the Gall) Goast counties of southeastern Texas and adjacent Louisiana (Paradivo, 19653, Nowak, 1970, 1972). Specimens have been obtained since 1960 and deposited in the United tates National Museum from Brazoria (east of the Drazos Riven, Chambers, Liberty, Harris. and Jefferson counties, ‘Texas.’ For information onthe werurrence of rufus in Lou jana and Arkansas sce Nowak, 1967, 1970 and. Pimlatt and Sealin, 1968 FOSSIL RECORD. No fossils have been assigned to , rufus and there have been few attempts at direct comparison of the modern red wolf to Pleistocene specimens. One of these few was by Gazin (1942) who, in describing Cane edward from the early Pleistocene of Arizona, stated: (p. S01); "The stall and jaw of C. edwardii .\.. ate about intermediate in bash iver ee \\ \ Ficus: 2 Map illustrating distibution of Canis rufus. ‘The shaded portion shows the probable distbution prior to 1600 ‘The dots represent the most marginal specimens (in museum zllections) that can definitely be assigned to pure C. rufus ‘The stippling. depicts the area in southeastern ‘Texas where pure populations of C. rufus now occur as indicated. by Specimens. ‘The species also probably now exists in southern Uooisiana, sine between those of a gray wolf, and of a corote, about ‘equalling specimens of the'red wolf, Cans rufus frm MUsourt land Arkantos «- The teeth are comparable to those in the ed wif and fescmble them im stracture more closely than they do. any other species of canida.” He did not, however, Sugeest phylogenetic affinity Ietween the, two species, and fonsidering the wide variation that Canis has always shown, 5 cannot be abit that ewer deine represents ony Continau with modern rufus. ‘Another reference 10-2 fol in relation to moder rufus involves Canis ermbraster’ Gidley, {rom Pleistocene. deposits in" Cumberland Cave, Maryland, Goldman (Young and. Gold ‘man, 1944:399), in discussing ormbrastei, stated only that i 'ppears to have been allied tothe red woll, Canis niger. * ibbard(1955:82) “reported «right ramos of a. sal volt in the late Pleistocene Upper Beserra Formation, Valley (of Tequlaquiae, Mexico. Ile noted: "The tpecimen i smaller than Cantt lupus ‘Linnaeus and. appears closely related. to Canis ‘niger Bartram. But the tre relationship will not be Jknoven until the upper dentition i found.” Nowak (197084) considered the possibility that the pro genitor of Cx rufus was closely related to C. leans, but had Fecome isolated inthe southeastern United States hy Plestocene glaciation. “He reported: A late Pleistocene. (Wisconsin) fossil from Alachua County, Florida, appears to represent an tinal taoatonal’ bewech “a coytehe acer andthe modern red wo.” FORM. Atkins and Dillon (1971) compared. the gross smonphology of the ceebella of « number of species of the genus Canis, including. rafos, and found that the cerebella Sdiated a division of the genus into two groupe: = rufus Iapas group ands detranjomuflarinjackal group.” Howerer, ‘aj lye rerun and eon characteris that i fing fom apa. ‘Although Atkins and Dillon belived thatthe cerebellum of rufus Sndicaten that sts closest affinities are ith Tapa, they found that the rufus cerchellum ffers from that ofall species of Canis examined in several portant traits, and resembles ingame laters the crea othe fxs thy tai (alopes Tagepas, Urocyon.cinereoargenteus, Vulpes. cham, Weeder, nt both European and American Y. vulpes). They ‘snsidered the cecbela ofthese foxes to bo more primitive in Sractare than those int Cans, and suggested that'& retention ‘f some foxlke characters nthe raf cerebellam may indeate {hat ajar is nearer to the common ancestral stock of Canis than ‘ave the other species of Modern Canis they examined ONTOGENY AND REPRODUCTION. Nothing has been published on. reproduction and development in rufus. Data in the files of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (pertaining to specimens. taken prior to 1930) reveal. the fallowing. In Arkansas, females with embryos were trappedbe 38 Fay on 10 Mas oa ith ng soi td. Male a SOLIS Te MET at eg a lk SIE hae aaa Nash 2 Bs FPS, Teena it ad a eae inert ts Pe aa ERO eal cand ice enrich tome lls al ie oes eter aE ae te, a KOSS sh ola fla Sl Beh A Cam ata npn tp ee tiwag) Se nee Senate CaP a eh eae at es Str al ee ae ae oat a mel area or lth ach re ice tr eat Spe areal Ss Pau ined Le ITED ch oc ee ESS UNIS Bs afte ECOLOGY. No comprehensive survey of the ecology of gelesen oe. Th falling hcchy informatio, “The range ‘of C. rafus was mostly within the humid division ofthe Lower ‘Austeel Life Zone) and. the. species apparently prefered a warm, mois, and’ densely ‘vegetated iabita The ed wolf was equally at home in the virgin pine forests, bottomland hardwood forests, or coastal prities and marches of the southeart The body proportions ofthe species may he an adaptation both for lite im swamps and. marahes for long-distance running in coastal pravies and. in the en pine forest of the southeast The eating overt! the re sutastern United States, probably ontributed forests of to the decline of rafus (Nowak, 1970) ‘Canis ‘rufus docs not appear to have been a. major predator of big yame. There are few records of its attacking Farge herhivores such as are numerovs for lupus. Attempts to Uist the food of rufus. (Young and Goldman, 1944; Davi, 1660; Beesley, 1967) refer mostly to rabbits, rodents and other small prey. Concerning. the Louisiana red wolf, St. Amant (1950:185)_ stated. that it it not Known to” what extent It preys on deer, and that the major woll concentrations ate not necessarily the areas most densely populated by deer. Even feports sich as Howell's (1921) of ed wolf predation "on Alomestic stock generally refer to small or younger animals hreing taken. Tt should’ not be presumed, however, that the red wolf exclusively preys on animals emaller than itelf Catesby (1783, 2:26) ‘ote that wolves pursued deer in the Carolinas, and Young "(1946:39) “noted that wild razorback hops formed a major part of the food of the red wolves found he Tomas River’ region of Louisiana. Jackson (961) Stated thet groups of three or more red wolves were generally Successful im attacking. adult cattle on” the JHIK ranch in Chambers County, Texas. In general, it appears that the prey fof rufus is intermediate in size between that of Zatvans and lupus, ‘According to John Steele (personal communication, Qetsber 1969} causes of mortality for the red woll inthe Texas Gulf Coast area include man, hookworms, distemper, and accidents. Most pups aequite hookwormns and ste ‘weakened by them tat they ‘cannot keep up with their parents. They die indirectly from hookworms, and adults have shortened Tife span de to. hookworms and heartworm Most of the adults he ‘captured during. is surveys were anemic and had low level infections of one sort or another ‘Man is probably the greatest enemy of rufus, and deliber. ate killing appears to be one of the major factors In the decline of the species (Nowak, 1970). "All personnel of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (Steele, McBride, Riley) who have recently worked with C. rafus in the Gulf Goast area of Texas, have commented (in personal communi cations) on the ease with which red wolves can be trapped or poisoned. ‘The species resembles latrans in that it is able to survive in areas of relatively dense ‘human | populations— rafus runways have been found in Galveston County, Texas, within sight of housing developments (Riley, personal commu nication, September 1970)--but it does not appear to possete the cunning and caution widely attsbuted to letrans. ‘The apparent ease of trapping rufus, combined with ecological 3 appear to be the major factors in ““(MeCarley, 1962; ‘Paradiso, 1968: changes i the decline of the sp Nowak, 1970) BEHAVIOR. Young (1946:36) noted the long legs and slender build of rufus and felt that its greyhoundike body would make it a etter long distance runmer than letrans, Fitey (Personal ‘communication, ‘September 1970) also. was impressed by the long les of rufus and stated that it appeared to him that the ved wolf was an animal adapted for coursing In open county. Steele (personal communication, October 1968) stated that in east Texas most rufus old their tils down at a 45" fanale when standing, but some animals hold it near back level Nearly" ail carry it horizomally when. they run.” Duting sreetings and courtship, they raise 7 high above their backs, Dethaps to activate sent glands. He also sated that rufus does not run Hike a dog, but hhas a bounding motion, somewhat ke 2 rocking hore, pausing ‘when the shoulders are highest. Red wolves lavestigate sounds nd noises by standing up on their hind lees, especially in {all gras and weeds Steele noted thet in the Texas Gulf Coast countos red wolves are most active at night, generally at the same. time Tabbite are Teeding. Sometimes ‘red. wolves bed down at ‘ight in the middle of a herd of atte, In daylight they rest in‘ weedy fields or gras or broth pastes, rom April t0 ‘mid-August red’ wolves reset their travels to ho pot that track sigos all but disappear. Beginning in September, they resume travel over & hurting range. Mated pairs, sometimes with an extra tale, travel together. Pecks of from five to Ti animale may get together temporaily, but break up into family aroupe toon, afte exchanging. grecings, Pairs travel round ‘range using established ranways. marked by scent fs-and serach marke Psled wolves have a long smooth howl that ends on a slightly higher note. "They also have a wide variety of yodeling fries that sound exactly Tike those of coyotes. Vernon Bailey n'a 1908 special report tothe Ul. 8, Biological Survey wrote Gf the wolves in the Big Thicket of Hardin County, Tex “Their vice is 4 compromise between that of the coyote and the Tobo (C. Iupush or rather a deeper vied ap yap and howl of the coyote. I suggest the coyote much more than the bo" ‘Stocle further noted that in the Texas Gulf Coast area dens ure found in hollow logs, stumps road culverts sand Knotts, and banks of canals, ditches, and rerervirs. They are fneraly screened from view hy berry vines, wild rose, brash Piles, reeset GENETICS. Studies conducted at the M.D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Insite, University of Texas, Houston, Ihave demonstrated thatthe diploid chromosome number of « red ‘wolf collected in 1966 in Jeflerson County, Texas, wat 72, and that the X chromosome only is biarmed. The karyotype of this specimen is thus indistinguishable from those of Zatrans, lupus, land familiar’, and chromosomal factors ‘would not io interbreeding. among. these species. (Frances E. Atrighi, personal communication, August 1969; and Mamm {Chromosomes Newsleter 21:15, July 1966). ‘Goldman (Young and Goldnian, 1944:480) first noted the posbilty of hybridization between leirons and rufus. He trrote: "Specimens collected in the vicinity of Llano, ‘Ts. Jnclude typleal examples of both species and individuals not Sharply distinctive of either. Cloce approach in eeeetial details and the apparent absence of "any. invariable unit character suggest the pousbiity of hybridism in some local licen Texas ‘McCarley (1962) felt that hybridization with latrans was possibly one of the factors that brought about the near Patermipation of rufus. He further suggested that the entire Subspecies C7, rifas might. be a population of natural liybutds between C. fatrans and C. rufus gregory. ‘Lawrence and Bosser (1067), using a multiple character analyeiy, found that a small sample of Canis from Fallvlle ‘Nevwton’ County, Arkansis, spanned the whole range of varia: tion from coyote to wolf and felt that thie indleated possible hybridization. ‘Paradiso (1968) examined a large serie of Canis fom east ‘Texas collected after'1060, and found that they also spanned the whole range of variation from typical latrans to typical rufus, with all intermediates represented. He concluded that massive hybridization had occurred between the two spectes in this region.Nowak (2970) reported that his studies with Paradiso at the United States National Museum indicated that in most fareas the red wolf died out as a result of heavy hunting and teeming press ‘end Tasive evita changes that were unfavorable to. the species ‘Specimens in the National Collection indicated that in many areas rufus was replaced by ppuroletrans and there, was no indication of ‘hybridization Between the two. Specimens from the Edwards Plateaw of central Tete, collected around the turn of the present century, id. show intermediate characters between rufus and letras, leading Nowak to postulate that a hybrid swarm formed here. Ho further postulated that thie hybrid swarm migrated east ward, occupying. territory from which Co rufus had been extirpated, and today i occurs throughout ‘most of castern ‘Texas. and Louisana,, Specimens indicated, that the upper Gulf Coast region of Texas and probably adjacent Louisiana fare perhaps the only areas In which C. rufus continucs 10 Survive as 8 pare specs, Nowak reported that early specimens ff C.F. rufus in the National collection led him to believe that it was a valid subspecies of rufus and did not represent hybrids as suggested by MeCarley (1962) REMARKS. There are a number of differing opinions regarding the taxonomic affinities of rufus. Goldman Young ‘and Goldman, 194) regarded rufus av a full species, distinct from both Zettans and tapas. Paradiso. (1968), struck by what he thought was, massive hybridization between rufus and lairans in east ‘Texas, suggested that the two might be com specie. "Lawrence and Bossert (1907:229) concluded. from their uultiple character analysis that “easly populations described. ae Canis niger [== C. rufus floridans) a igregoryt (= C. rufus aregoryfl from the southeastern wooded Fegions, east ofthe range of Canis latrans, are only a local form of Canis fupus, not & dstint species of woll” Nowak (1970) feported trenchant differences between rufus, Topus, and lairans, and regarded rufus asa full species, Atkins and Dillon (1971) alco presented evidence from brain morphology that rufas should stand apart as a distinct species from other North American Cants, ‘Studies currently ‘being conducted by Nowak. at the University. of Kansas on Pleistocene and ecent'Canis in North America, and serological studies by Uljeres §. Seale of the University of Minnesota, may throw additional light on the relationshtps of Canis rufus. LITERATURE CITED Atkins, D. L, and L- Dillon. 1971, Evolution of the cerebellum nthe genus Canis, Jour, Mammal. 52:96 107. Audubon, Jods, aad J, Bachman. 185i. ‘The quadropeds of ‘Nort America. New York, vo. 2,334 pp Bailey, V. 1905. Biological survey of Texat. N. Amer. Fauna 25-1-220. Bartram, W. 1791, Travels, . . {fit ed. Philadelphia, sxxtly +522 pp. Beealey, C. 1967. Marsh fugitive. Texas Parks and Wildlife 29:18-20, Catesby, M. 1743, The natural history of Carolina, Florida, ‘ad the Bahama Islands, London, 2 vole Davis, W. B. 1960, The mammals of ‘Texas, id Fich Commission, Austin, 252 pp. Gazin, CL 1942. The late Cenozoie vertebrate fauna from ‘Texas Game the San Pero Valley, Arizona, Proc. U.S. National Museum 7475-818 Goldman, EA. 1957, The wolves of North America. Jou. Manni, 48:37—45, Hagineier EM. 1966, A numerical analysis of the dietsbu onal patterns of North “American mammals Il, Re valuation of the Provinces. Syst Zool, 15:279-258 Harlan 1025, Fauna Americans, Anthony Finley, Phila delphia, 318 Hibbard, C! W. 1955. Pleistocene vertebrates from the Upper Becerra (Becerra Superior) formation, Valley of, eq uisqulae, Mesien, with notes on ther Pleistocene forms Unis, Michigan Contrib, Mus: Paleo. 1247-96 Howell, AHL “1921, "A biological survey of Alabema. Sine, ana, 451-88 Jackson, ft 3.196). Home on the double bayou. University ‘of Toxas Presn Austin vil + 135 pp. Lawrence, Band W. Ht Bowen. 1967, Multiple character ‘naipsie of Cans tapas, ftrans, and familieris, with a discussion of tho relationship of Canis niger. Amer. Zool i) soos 2 MeCatiey, H, 1962, The taxonomic status of wild Canis (Canidae) in the south central United States. South western Nat. 7:227-283, Mille, G-'S. 1912. The names of two North American wolves. ‘Proc, Biol, Soc, Washington 25:95. Nowak, it. M. 1967. ‘The ted wolf in Louisiana. Defenders ‘of Wildlife News 42:60-70. — 970. Report” on the red wolf. Defenders of Wildlife News 45:82-91 — 197 The mysterious wolf of the south, Net. Hist. 81 (1) 50.58, 74-77 Paraco, J. L- 1965. Recent records of red wolves from the ‘Gulf Coast of Texas. Southwestern Nat. 10:318-319 — 1068, “Canids recently collected in cast Texas with com: ents on the taxonomy of the red wolf, Amer. Midland Nat. 80:529-504. Pimlat, D. Hand P. W. Joslin. 1968, The status and dist bution of the red, wolf, Trans. a8rd. N. Amer. Wildlife and Natural Res. Cont. :373-309. Richardson, J. 1829. Fauna Boreali-Americana. John Murray, ‘Landon, vi + 300 pp. St. Ament,” L$. "1988. Louisiane wildlife and inventory ‘management plan. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Com Imisiony 3x 329, Young, SP. 15%. The wolf in North American history ‘Caxton Printers Ltd, Caldwell, Idaho, 149 pp. Young, S.P., and E. A. Goldman,” 1944. "The wolves of North ‘America’ American Wildlife Insitute, Washington, D. C ax 685 pp. Young, 5. P. and H. HT. Jackson. 1951. The clever coyote. “Ainerican Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D. Cav} 11 pp. ‘The principal editor of thie account was SyoNEY ANMERSON. oun L, Parsowso, Buneav oF Sront Fisttems axo WiLoure, Bino. Axo “Mascara, Lavorarones, Nanionat Mustvst oF Naturat. Histony, Wastunycron, D.C. 20560, axo RONALD M. "Nowak, Muscost or Neonat Hisrony, Usivensiry oF ‘Kansas, LaWnincs, Kansas 65084.