"The ongoing discussion regarding the wolf of North Africa is paradigmatic of the plasticity of the species and the uncertainty of canids' taxonomy; modern genetic studies have provided sufficient (but still highly debated) evidence that all the golden jackals from Egypt to Senegal should be reclassified as wolves. Zoologists have been running after this huge diversity of forms, from trying to apply their rudimentary rules of taxonomy, and in the past have zealously named over 30 subspecies of Canis lupus (currently reduced to less than a dozen). But the taxonomy does not reflect the true nature of the diversity of wolves; the conventions of zoological nomenclature impose an artificial stiffness to a complex of forms that is essentially fluid in time and space. The human obsession for categories (species and subspecies) finds in the wolf a serious challenge. Defining a subspecies is always a subjective exercise as there are no fixed and general rules to identify the boundaries of a putative subspecies. And this is especially difficult for wolf taxonomy, one that has been based opportunistically each time on a unique haplotype, a morphological feature of the skull, a colour pattern of the pelt and so on with, a list of mainly ad hoc characters. Current genomic advances promise to contribute new objective information, but how to use affinities and distances will remain a human choice. I confess my complete lack of excitement for these taconomic exercises, but I also understand the importance of names as conservation works only if populations are recognisable, and a name can make a difference between the conservation of a species or its removal from the wild."