However, Elledge AZD6244 in vivo et al. (2008) found some corroboration between classifications made through genetic and skull analysis methods, but none between either analytical method and visual assessment. Similarly, Newsome & Corbett (1985) could not distinguish between individuals classified using skull measurements as dingoes or dingo-dog hybrids on the basis of their coat coloration. Newsome, Corbett &

Carpenter (1980) and Newsome & Corbett (1982) used measurements of skull morphology to discriminate dingo, dog and hybrid skulls, but did not know the level of hybridization within the dingo samples. Molecular studies that have attempted to discriminate between the genotypes of dingoes and their hybrids have used captive animals held by breeders of dingoes, but it was unknown to what extent that selection by breeders may have influenced the genotypes of captive dingoes, or indeed if hybrids existed

in the pedigrees of the captive animals (Wilton, Steward & Zafiris, 1999). In summary, current methods to classify dingoes, feral dogs and dingo-dog hybrids based on morphology, pelage and genetics appear to have poor discriminatory abilities because natural variation within dingoes is poorly understood; further, it is unknown if hybridization may have altered the genome and phenotypes of the 20th and 21st century reference specimens. A better description of the dingo, based on specimens that are unlikely to have been influenced by hybridization, is required to provide a benchmark against which to assess the identities of dingoes in Australia. Such a description would assist conservation and wildlife managers to classify dingoes and to

understand how the morphology Copanlisib mouse of contemporary wild Canis differs from pre-European dingoes. The purpose of this paper is to provide that description. Because Australia was colonized by Europeans in 1788 and was only sparsely inhabited by European settlers prior to 1900 CE (Common Era) (Powell, 1991), we assumed that dingoes collected prior to this date would be less likely to have been influenced by hybridization with domestic dogs. We searched the collections of museums held in Australia, Europe and the US to locate dingo specimens that were known to Lepirudin or likely to pre-date 1900 CE. The sample of 69 dingo skull specimens and six skin specimens we subsequently located included specimens taken by collectors in the 19th century and specimens collected from archaeological and paleontological deposits where museum data indicated that they pre-dated 1900 (Supporting Information Table S1).We used radiocarbon (C14) dating to determine if specimens from cave deposits that lacked data on their context pre-dated 1900 (Supporting Information Table S2). Radiocarbon dating for specimens from the Western Australian Museum Palaeontology collections, 76.9.385, 76.9.384, 65.12.104, B3227b, B3227a, was completed at Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, Miami, Florida. The selection of domestic dog C.