Editing Red wolf (section)

===== Whole-genome evidence =====
[[File:Red Wolf (1980).png|right|thumb|A red wolf in the forest]]
In July 2016, a [[Whole genome sequencing|whole-genome]] DNA study proposed, based on the assumptions made, that all of the North American wolves and coyotes diverged from a common ancestor less than 6,000–117,000&nbsp;years ago. The study also indicated that all North America wolves have a significant amount of coyote ancestry and all coyotes some degree of wolf ancestry, and that the red wolf and Great Lakes region wolf are highly [[Genetic admixture|admixed]] with different proportions of gray wolf and coyote ancestry. One test indicated a wolf/coyote divergence time of 51,000&nbsp;years before present that matched other studies indicating that the extant wolf came into being around this time. Another test indicated that the red wolf diverged from the coyote between 55,000 and 117,000&nbsp;years before present and the Great Lakes region wolf 32,000&nbsp;years before present. Other tests and modelling showed various divergence ranges and the conclusion was a range of less than 6,000 and 117,000&nbsp;years before present. The study found that coyote ancestry was highest in red wolves from the southeast of the United States and lowest among the Great Lakes region wolves.

The theory proposed was that this pattern matched the south-to-north disappearance of the wolf due to European colonization and its resulting loss of habitat. Bounties led to the extirpation of wolves initially in the southeast, and as the wolf population declined wolf-coyote admixture increased. Later, this process occurred in the Great Lakes region with the influx of coyotes replacing wolves, followed by the expansion of coyotes and their hybrids across the wider region.<ref name=vonholdt2016/><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1126/science.aag0699 |title=How do you save a wolf that's not really a wolf? |journal=Science |year=2016 |last1=Morell |first1=Virginia}}</ref> The red wolf may possess some genomic elements that were unique to gray wolf and coyote lineages from the American South.<ref name=vonholdt2016/> The proposed timing of the wolf/coyote divergence conflicts with the finding of a coyote-like specimen in strata dated to 1 million years before present,<ref name=wang2008/> and red wolf fossil specimens dating back 10,000&nbsp;years ago.<ref name=nowak2002/> The study concluded by stating that because of the extirpation of gray wolves in the American Southeast, "the reintroduced population of red wolves in eastern North Carolina is doomed to genetic swamping by coyotes without the extensive management of hybrids, as is currently practiced by the USFWS."<ref name=vonholdt2016/>

In September&nbsp;2016, the USFWS announced a program of changes to the red wolf recovery program<ref name=fws2016a/> and "will begin implementing a series of actions based on the best and latest scientific information". The service will secure the captive population which is regarded as not sustainable, determine new sites for additional experimental wild populations, revise the application of the existing experimental population rule in North Carolina, and complete a comprehensive Species Status Assessment.<ref name=fws2016b/>

In 2017, a group of canid researchers challenged the recent finding that the red wolf and the eastern wolf were the result of recent coyote-wolf hybridization. The group highlight that no testing had been undertaken to ascertain the time period that hybridization had occurred and that, by the previous study's own figures, the hybridization could not have occurred recently but supports a much more ancient hybridization. The group found deficiencies in the previous study's selection of specimens and the findings drawn from the different techniques used. Therefore, the group argues that both the red wolf and the eastern wolf remain genetically distinct North American taxa.<ref name=hohenlohe2017/> This was rebutted by the authors of the earlier study.<ref name=vonholdt2017/> Another study in late 2018 of wild canids in southwestern [[Louisiana]] also supported the red wolf as a separate species, citing distinct red wolf DNA within hybrid canids.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last1=Murphy |first1=Sean M. |last2=Adams |first2=Jennifer R. |last3=Cox |first3=John J. |last4=Waits |first4=Lisette P. |title=Substantial red wolf genetic ancestry persists in wild canids of southwestern Louisiana |journal=Conservation Letters |language=en |issue=2 |pages=e12621 |doi=10.1111/conl.12621 |issn=1755-263X |year=2018|volume=12 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

In 2019, a [[literature review]] of the previous studies was undertaken by the [[National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine]]. The position of the National Academies is that the historical red wolf forms a valid taxonomic species, the modern red wolf is distinct from wolves and coyotes, and modern red wolves trace some of their ancestry to historic red wolves. The species ''Canis rufus'' is supported for the modern red wolf, unless genomic evidence from historical red wolf specimens changes this assessment, due to a lack of continuity between the historic and the modern red wolves.<ref>{{cite book |doi=10.17226/25351 |pmid=31211533 |title=Evaluating the Taxonomic Status of the Mexican Gray Wolf and the Red Wolf |year=2019 |isbn=978-0-309-48824-2 |department=Board on Life Sciences |publisher=National Academies of Sciences and Engineering|last1=National Academies Of Sciences |first1=Engineering |s2cid=134662152 }}</ref>