Many people think of Wolves as just large Wild Dogs. Wolves are, in fact, very different from Wild Dogs and very different from tame Dogs. They occupy a different ecological niche, they have very different behavior patterns, and although they look fairly similar to Dogs such as collies or german shepards to human eyes, they are physically very different in ways that make a big difference in the ability to live in the wild and in their particular niche.
For a short disscusion of why species can still be different species when they can produce fertile hybrids, click here
Physical Differences A Wolf is much larger than a Dog of the same
weight. A german shepard adult averages 28 inches at the shoulder.
A very small adult female Wolf will be 26 inches at the shoulder,
and a very large male Wolf will be 38 inches at the shoulder
(although a few exceptional Alaskan Wolves have been found as tall
as 42 inches at the shoulder) so the average german shepard is
only a couple inches taller than the smallest adult Wolves. A
hairless Wolf would, except for the neck and head, look very
similar to a greyhound. Wolves have a long-legged, lean, sinewy
build as nature's long-distance runners. Most of the apparent bulk
of Wolves is their long, thick, shaggy fur.
Assuming a Wolf and wolf-like
Dog (such as an eskimo-type
Dog, collie, or german shepard) of the same weight, age, and sex (both
adults): The Wolf will be signifigantly higher at the shoulders
because of it's longer legs, which have almost a spindly appearance. In
fact, nearly every dimension in the Wolf will be longer than a Dog of the
same weight, which, along with their thick fur, makes Wolves appear to
weigh much more than they do. The
Wolf will have noticably larger paws, especially Northern Wolves which
often leave paw-prints 5 or 6 inches across. The
Wolf will have a larger head, larger skull, and longer muzzle. The Wolf
has a differently shaped skull with generally a larger brain and more
arches and graceful curves. A Dog tends to have a "stop" at the muzzle,
so that the face and top of the muzzle lie in distinct planes and come
together at often almost a 90 degree angle right below the eyes where the
muzzle starts. The Wolf's muzzle seems to slope and curve out of it's
face with no visibly defined "planes" or "angles at a stop". The Wolf's
ears will have a somewhat different shape and be connected to the head at
a different angle, so that they can be laid almost flat backwards against the
neck. The Wolf, in it's social communication, relys much more on facial
expression than Dogs and has many more facial muscles. This means it can
produce more facial expressions than Dogs can, and it's face appears more
fluid and alive as subtle facial expressions constantly move over it.
The Wolf's eyes will be positioned somewhat differently on the head, it still has binocular vision, (as do all predators) but the eyes are situationed for slightly better side vision, and their different positioning gives a different look to the face. Wolves (and Coyotes) also have eyes that are more slanted than Dogs eyes, which are very round. This gives Wolves a "wild" look, a "sly" and "ancient" look. A Wolf also has a different look to it's iris and pupil that is different from a Dog's eyes but hard to explain. A Wolf's neck is much larger around and more muscular than a Dog's neck. Since wolves have to rip chunks of flesh from fast-moving large prey that are much stronger than them and avoid lightning-fast lunges of nearly knife-sharp hooves, their very muscular neck is very important. This large neck often gives Wolves a front-heavy look when compared to their "greyhound" hindquarters and long spindly legs. In fact a few of the older male (males average thicker necks than females) Wolves who have been good hunters for a long time and really developed their neck muscles, look almost odd from front-heaviness. Wolves have a torso that is much narrower, from the right side to the left side, than dog's torsos, and the Wolf's chest is also deeper (taller in the vertical direction from the top of the back to the bottom of the chest). This deep, narrow chest makes for more efficient lungs. It also makes the Wolf appear larger than it is, (especially if seen broadside) except when seen from certain angles, like above it. Dogs have a barrel-shaped chest which causes their front legs to turn out, instead of dropping directly down. This makes for a less efficient and noticable different gait.
Wolves, and Coyotes, and Foxes have a functional gland on the upperside of their tail, but near the base of it. This gland is marked by a distinct or indistinct triangle of darker fur. Dogs do not have this gland, except a very few dogs that are old and suffered from a certain diesese. Only a few dogs have the patch of fur that marks where this gland should be. In some books about Wolves the tail gland and the anal glands are confused. Even in the few dogs that have the tail gland, it is tiny, noticable only upon dissection, and non-functional. The anal glands in Wolves (two glands that coat each turd with an oily substance that smells) are much more active in Wolves than they are in Dogs. In fact, it is common in Dogs that the anal glands become swollen, blocked or non-functional. Dogs with blocked anal glands experience discomfort and will constantly drag their bottom on the ground, trying to unload their anal glands. Anal gland blockage in Dogs is thought to result partially from Dogs having to "hold it" and wait to poop until it is convienient for the human. Anal gland blockage is much more of a problem in Dogs who are very unlike Wild Dogs, such as "mutant rat-dogs". Wolves smell more strongly from their various glands than Dogs do, so that Wolves smell stronger, sharper, muskier, and oilyer than Dogs smell. This causes Wolves to smell more like a Wild Animal, such as the way ferrets smell. It is likely that anal gland disfunction in Dogs was deliberately selected for by humans because humans dislike animals that smell strongly.
All canines, and most animals, have their penis usually drawn up inside their body in a sheath or "pouch", out of the way of danger during activities like running through thorn bushes, but can voluntarily thrust it out of this pouch when they want to do something with it. in dogs, the sheath lies along the lower stomach, with the opening to the sheath being not very far from the middle of their belly. In Wolves, from pictures of them urinating and stuff, it can be seen that the opening to the sheath is much closer to being under their tail, and definately far from being near the middle of the belly. This difference can be seen in the different ways male Dogs and male Wolves crouch when mating with a female. Male Wolves are more "hitched up" with their pelvis more rotated and lifted when they crouch to enter a female. Male Wolves also have balls that are drawn tightly up against their body, directly under their anus, like a Cat's balls are positioned. Male Dogs, depending on the breed of Dog, tend to have balls that hang from their lower belly, between their legs.
Wolves have, in proportion to their body, much larger paws than dogs, especially northern Wolves. Wolves have a much bushier tail than most dogs, even the bushy tail breeds. Wolves have a noticable "mane" on their neck. This mane is more noticable on males and in the winter coat. Few dogs have a mane that is as large as a Wolf's mane. A Wolf's fur is much thicker, softer, and luxurious than a Dog's fur, and it has a more easily seen grouping of hairs into underfur, medium length hairs, and guard hairs. A Wolf can be nearly any color, but nearly all Wolves, when looked at closely, have hairs of many colors mixed closely together which gives each individual Wolf it's particular shade. This is why Wolves exist in so many shades and varietys of the basic grey, white, black, brown, red, cream, buff, rufous, and blond colors. Wolves also (like many Wild animals, but very few tame ones) have "banded" hairs, with bands of several colors (to see what this looks like, look at a wild rabbit's skin) and usually have guard hairs tipped with a darker color, such as black. In certain areas of the body, the Wolf will have a strong tendency to have dark shading or ticking from these guard hairs. To see the locations where the shading tends to be, look at a picture of a white Wolf. Few Wolves are technically all-white, they usually have black-tipped guard hairs at those locations. Dog's fur is usually very close to monotone in color, or monotone within patches. This applies to African hunting dogs and Pariahs and Dingos too.
Differences in Senses The Wolf is well known to have much more sensitive senses than the Dog. A Wolf's sense of smell is much greater than the average Dog. Some experts say the Wolf can smell as much better than Dogs as Dogs can smell better than humans. All experts agree that the Wolf can smell signifigantly better than the Blood Hound (most Dogs sense of smell is insignifigant when compared to the Blood Hound), but how much better is not agreed on, some say twice as well, some say one thousand times as well. The Wolf has a better developed organ of Jacobson (also called vomeronasal organ) than Dogs. The organ of Jacobson is absent in humans. The organ of Jacobson is very similar to the organs used to smell, and probably performs the same function (smelling), but it is located in a cavity which connects, via two ducts (passageways), to the roof of the mouth. The Wolf has hearing that is better than the hearing of Dogs, but how much better is disagreed upon. Many experts believe the Wolf can hear higher-pitched ultrasonic noises than Dogs. The Wolf is known, as a hunter that hunts largely by sight, to have very keen eyesight. It is not known if it is better than Dogs sight, but is suspected to be so. Wolves have a much greater density of nerves in their skin than Dogs do (and Dogs have a much greater density than humans). This means than Wolves feel more, and more precisely, than Dogs do. This greater density is greatest in the legs, paws, and muzzle.
Behavioral Differences The Wolf behaves noticable differently from the Dog. One often-noted difference is that a Dog's primary means of vocalization seems to be barking, whereas Wolves bark so seldom that some Wolf experts have claimed they don't bark at all. A Wolf howl and a Dog howl sound different. The differences have been noted precisely in detail in terms of pattern, pitches, rythm and other things by scientists, but just go get a tape of Wolf howls and you'll see the difference yourself. The Dog is often believed to have experienced "fetalisation" as humans selected for docile, puppy-like traits. The Dog routinely exhibits behavior seen frequently in Wolf puppies, but nearly never seen in adult Wolves. Wolf Packs also organize themselves differently than Dog Packs (of either Wild or Feral Dogs).
Wolf Packs are generally much smaller than Dog Packs. Both Wild and Feral Dogs make much more use of sheer numbers in pulling down prey than strategy. Wolves use much more strategy than numbers. Wolf Pack dominance orders are organized differently than Dog Pack dominance orders.
Other Differences There are some other differences between Dogs and Wolves. Wolves (and also Coyotes) can run faster than Dogs. Wolves, because of having a different-shaped foot, leave a track (in all but wet sand or soft mud where the toes spread) that is longer, oval-shaped, and with the two middle toes (of the toes that reach the ground, the 5th front foot toes doesn't) noticable more forward than the outside toes on that foot, and also very close together. Dogs leave a very round track with their two middle toes spread and Not farther forward than the other toes. Wolves often swallow chunks of broken bone, which are regularly found in their feces. Scientists are still not sure why Wolves do not have their intestines punctured by sharp bone edges and slivers. Dogs who swallow similar things often have bad trouble. Don't give chicken bones to your dog. Wolves can endure more starvation, hard running, long distance wandering, cold, and other thing than Dogs can endure. Wolves are nature's endurance animal in many ways.
Theorys of the origin(s) of Dogs The most commonly heard theory of the origin of Dogs is that Ancient Peoples domesticated Wolf puppies, and, by selecting for traits that were desirable to humans, ended up with Dogs. Experiments on packs of captive Wolves have led some credence to this theory. A pack kept in a pen that has all it's members destroyed who are not docile around humans with minimal (daily) handling, will, in about 5 generations degenerate to Animals I'll call Wogs. Wogs look very like eskimo-type dogs, but they do not look like Wolves to people who know what Wolves look like. Wogs have a noticably shorter muzzle and different build than Wolves. Wogs act much like Dogs, but some like Wolves. Wogs have definately picked more Dog behavior than Wolves. Wogs are also noticably less physically able than Wolves, but pretty physically able for Dogs. The ease with which Wogs can be produced from Pure Wolves with no crossing with Dogs lends credence to the theory that Dogs' ancestors were Wolves.
But that isn't the whole story. There are other theorys that also have this much or more evidence in their favor, and which make it likely that Wolves were not the only origin of Dogs. For one thing, there is the Pariah-Dingo group of Wild Dogs. Photos of Dingos are fairly easy to find, go look at one to see the very constant body type that the Pariah-Dingo group of Wild Dogs has. This type of Dog is found both as Wild Dogs and Semi-tame and tame Dogs across southern Asia, in India, and in Austrailia, yet the body type is extremly constant across all this area. There are differences between Dingo-Pariah Dogs and the domestic Dog. Such as Dingo-Pariahs have keener senses and the females only go into estrus once a year, instead of twice. Dingo-Pariah type Dogs are much closer to being Wild animals, even to having somewhat slanted eyes. And Pariah-Dingo Dogs, when taken in from the Wild as pups and tamed, act very agreeable like domestic Dogs, not like the kinds of nasty conflicts Wolves often have with people when one tries to tame them. Dingos are willing to mate with domestic Dogs, but there is usually no offspring because the tame Dog is usually killed during the agressive mating. It was long thought that the Dingo-Pariah group of Dogs were only descendants of tame Dogs descended from Wolves who had gone feral. But from fossil evidence and cave-painting evidence, the Dingo-Pariah group of Dogs (except Dingos were thought to have made it to Austrailia as pets of Aborigines, for they arrived at the same time) existed as Wild Dogs a long, long time before people domesticated anything. So, then why would people go to the trouble of tediously selecting for domesticated Wolves when Pariahs were right there and suited their needs better? Of course, in Northern areas Pariahs were probably less available. And once people had Pariahs, they could hybridize them with Wolves. Yet, over most of the Pariah's range Wolves live or have lived, and the people seem to feel no need to hybridize their Pariahs, for they remain pure.
It seems probable that at least some Wolf genes were introduced to Dogs, especially when the Dogs were being bred for certain purposes. There is also the case of poodles. In ancient Europe there used to be a species of 400-lb (well above the weight range of the largest Wolves) wild canid with poodle-like fur. It seems to have been an animal that was evolving in the direction of an aquatic life (like otters or whatever) and had been for some time. This animal was bred by humans and selected for certain traits and they were the ancestors of the poodle. They undoubtable contributed their genes at least somewhat to some other breeds of Dog. And poodles undoubtably (especially the modern poodles, who are unlike their most recent functional "working dog" ancestors) had some other dogs contribute to their genes. Yet here is another base Wild canid that hasn't evolved from the Wolf, but rather from the same canid base stock the Wolf and other canids evolved from, sometime in the ice ages or something, that definately has contributed signifigantly to some breeds of Dog (such as the poodle). And Coyotes readily produce fertile offspring with Dogs. And there is also the fact that Jackal-Dog hybrids have been found. Of course, the Jackal has two less chromosomes than the Dog, but if the hybrid is bred back to Jackal stock, it will regain the Jackal number (but still have Dog genes), and if bred back to Dog stock, it will regain the Dog number (but still have Jackal genes). In several scientific books, though, it is stated that Jackal-Dog hybrids are impossible. This is not based on evidence, because there have been two small-scale experiments in which many Jackal-Dog hybrids were created and no experiments that I can find where it was experimented with and didn't work. Scientists just like to say the word "impossible" when they have believed something for a long time without really experimenting and someone tries to prove them wrong. And then there are many obscure little-studied breeds of Wild canid that it is likely have neither been descended from the Wolf nor from Feral domestic dogs, but the available evidence isn't conclusive as to their origins, including species like the forest fox (not really a fox at all), the bush dog and many others. Obviously the Dog, or at least a signifigant number of breeds of Dog, is not "evolved from the Wolf" but rather hybrid of one or more not-descended-from-Wolves wild canids and Wolves. The exact proportion of Wolf genes is probably impossible to determine, but I suspect that it is not much more than half in most domestic breeds, and that Wogs of one kind or another have played a signifigant role in huskys and samyoeds and such, but a lesser role in collies, labradors, and retreivers, and that some of the very odd looking obscure Wild canids (of which there were probably many more species existing in the past) may have had a large role in breeds like the pekingese.
What Inuit (eskimos) think about the difference between Wolves and Dogs The Inuit believed, before the white man, that the dog was the only animal with no soul. After the white man, they believed that the white man's domesticated animals also had no soul. In writing on the Inuit's Dogs, which look rather like huskys, many white people have claimed that Inuit Dogs were not Dogs at all but pure-blooded domesticated Wolves. The Inuit were totally disgusted by this attitude because, even though their dogs looked much more like Wolves than the white man's dogs, they knew their dogs had much different behavior patterns and much inferior bodies and endurance. They also knew that their dogs had a different body build and proportions, and any Inuit could tell the difference between a Wolf and a Dog at a glance, and tell the difference between their tracks nearly all of the time. The Inuit knew, as many people who have had Wolves as pets learn the hard way, that it is nearly impossible to own Wolves without the Wolves being very difficult or becoming dangerous. Also Wolves, in all cases, must be tied or penned at all times if the surrounding countryside does have any Wild Wolves, or they will leave and join them when grown. The Wolves that are docile and trainable are few, and the difference cannot be told until they are grown, at which time much food and effort has been wasted on the untrainable ones. The Wolf-Dog hybrids are often even worse than Wolves in this regard. The Inuit do cross their dogs with Wolves occasionally, when the line is getting weak, but then they cross the offspring back to dogs again and again until all is docile, and thus never have dogs even as much as 1/4 Wolf. Their breed of dogs is thus probably largely or wholly similar to 12th generation or so Wogs, and it is likely that no unWolf and unWog genes were introduced to them. Yet they are certainly not Wolves. The Inuit have a deep respect for Wolves as a spiritual animal, and so do many North American Indians. In every place in the world where no natural (non-feral) species of wild Dog exists, the natives see the Dog as a non-spiritual entity, often repulsive. In every place where specie(s) of natural Wild Dog exists, the natives see the Dog as a spiritual animal (often similar to the Jackal spirit), but a very different type of spirituality than the Wolf. In North America, with no natural (and practically no feral) Wild Dogs, the word for Wolf in a number of languages means something like "the animal that looks like a dog but is a living spirit" or "the animal that looks like a dog but is powerful medicine".
NOTE: the differences between Wolves and Dogs are also fairly true, but less true, for true Wild Dogs such as African Hunting Dogs, Pariahs, and Dingos. The body-type/build/proportion differences are still true, the behavioral differences are just as extreme, and the organization-of-pack differences are still true, but the senses of true Wild Dogs are much keener than domesticated Dogs. True Wild Dogs exhibit some behavioral differences from domestic Dogs that are still different from Wolf behavior, but also exhibit a few that are more similar to Wolves.
Return to the Wolf Shapes Page