He already knows this and is among the researchers who have redefined our understanding of wolf dynamics.... you seem to be stuck in the 70s when Mech first published his influential an popular book that gave rise to all these misconceptions.

From David Mech's site...

"Below you can download a pdf version of Schenkel’s 1947 “Expressions Studies on Wolves.” This is the study that gave rise to the now outmoded notion of alpha wolves. That concept was based on the old idea that wolves fight within a pack to gain dominance and that the winner is the “alpha” wolf. Today we understand that most wolf packs consist of a pair of adults called “parents” or “breeders,” (not “alphas”), and their offspring.

See http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/sci...us_english.pdf for more information.
"

Er I suggest you read my post I am well aware of the changes David has made thanks to his studies of real wild Wolf PACKS

Becky intimated that Wolves do not live in PACKS & also that African Wild Dogs do not live in PACKS, now the quote from David's site above quite clearly states that Wolf PACKS do exist.

I want to know what research anyone has done that shows that African Wild Dogs do not live in PACKS(as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary: A group of animals that live and hunt together) & that NO dogs form PACKS.

So the African Hunting Dog isn't a dog ??????? Why is it part of the Subfamily Caninae :True dogs - Tribe Canini: Genus Lycaon ? are you saying that it is a rodent like the Prairie Dog(Order Rodentia: Suborder Sciuromorpha: Family Scriudae: Genus Cynomys.) Hm my Zoology books appear to be way off then !

Just because some of us maintain that wolves and some wild dogs do live in packs, it does not automatically mean that we support the alpha male and dominace theories. The word 'pack' purely means a group of animals that live and hunt together....it does not specify whether the pack is a family group or not, nor the order within the pack.

The real question I guess is what is the relevance of this to domestic dogs.

I'm not sure that anyone is trying to say that they would become wolves. But I think there is every likelihood that they would revert to wolf like group structures. Taking your example of humans, no (hopefully at least!) we would not revert to cavemen, but I think there would be certain 'backward' steps. For example, would woman still seek sexual equality - I think not, i think they would revert to looking after the children while the men did the 'hard work'. Choices of partner would also no doubt change - they would not be selected on 'love' or 'compatibilty' but from the woman's point of view, the partner most likely to be able to provide for their family and from the mans, the woman most likely to raise him strong healthy children.

I think dogs are the same in that for them to survive and successfully reproduce, they would need to form close knit groups capable of co-operation, i.e. going back towards the wolf. I also think that whilst domesticated dogs don't currently need the social and other skills to succeed in such a group, for many dogs it is still inherent and that put in the position of needing to live in a pack, they would fall in with the ways quite easily...ie it would not be a completely alien concept to them.

But again, whether this is relevent to the training of a modern domestic dog is a different matter. personally, for the reasons stated above, i don't think it should be automatically dismissed, but equally I certainly don't think it should be used as the foundation for all dog understanding/training etc.

The first thing you should do is realize that going to a dictionary for a technical definition is foolish.

Really? (is it as bad as quoting from wikipedia )

Out of interest, what would your definition of 'pack' be and from what source?

Since we already have evidence that this isn't so, the "likelihood" of you being right is approaching zero.

This suggests a self willed evolution and we know nature doesn't work this way. Evolution and nature does not 'care' about needs and for reasons far too technical to go into the dog cannot go "backward" any more than human populations could become Homo habilis.

Is it really ??? Ok then From my Zoology terminology book

Pack: When applied to a group of animal used to denote a group that is formed for increasing chances of the survival of the genetic material of the individual animals, by co-existing & hunting & rearing offspring !

Nm That in layman's terms is a group of animals that live/breed/hunt together !!!!

I'm going to have to come back to you on that because I have definitely read about feral dogs forming packs, sharing the raising of the pups and with only one bitch in the group having pups.

Urrrmmm, i thought evolution was ALL about needs... not needs as in 'I need a mobile phone to stay in contact' but needs as in 'if we don't/can't do this/that, our future offspring will not survive'.

Once again, I am not necessarily talking about physical characteristics (although to an extent i think there would be changes) but about behaviour.

Then by your definintion dogs don't form packs. According to the research they maintain their numbers by adopting new members, not reproduction. They don't rear the pups in a group and they don't hunt in coordinated groups, which is why they don't bring down large game.