is cited inTønnessen, Morten 2010. Wolf Land. Biosemiotics 3.3: 289–297 (online version, published April 23, 2010: DOI: 10.1007/s12304-010-9077-x).
Hiedanpää, Juha & Jani Pellikka 2017. Preadaptative Transactions and Institutional Change: Wolf-critical activism in southwestern Finland [2010e]. Environmental Policy and Governance 27: 270-281. DOI: 10.1002/eet.1754.
Excerpt (p. 277):
A marriage and a one dollar note are typical examples that Searle uses to illustrate a status function. The wolf-critical civil society has actively claimed that the wolf should not have such a position, since it lacks some essential biological properties and definitely lacks the collective and institutional properties that would constitute its status function. The wolf’s status must not be symbolized (for wolf semiotics, see Tønnessen, 2010). Instead, the wolf must be considered according to its actual physical and mental effects and not according to some agreed upon abstract properties, e.g. it being endangered, since there are tens of thousands of wolves in Russia.