![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
If we don't want the "semidomesticated" list to be a mile long, with every single species anyone has ever captive-bred as a pet, or ranched, or whatever, it's a good idea to group closely related species, as long as they have about the same nation of origin, uses, domestication date, and so on. I did it for the various sliders, I'd appreciate if someone can do the same for the congeneric snakes and whatnot that have been added recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Dennis the mennis: Amazing work there, having expanded the article so much, but I would like to ask, how exactly do the taxonomic groupings, which are mentioned towards the end of the page, work? The actual lists do not always group related subspecies or species. For example, the dog is not an ungulate, unlike its 'neighbour' in the table, the goat, though the latter is grouped with other ungulates. Leo1pard ( talk) 10:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Dennis the mennis: May I suggest an arrangement like this, so that different groups of subspecies and species are arranged differently?
Subspecies | Description | Image |
---|---|---|
Bengal tiger (P. t. tigris) (Linnaeus, 1758) [1] [2] | The Bengal tiger's coat colour varies from light yellow to reddish yellow with black stripes.
[3] Males attain a total nose-to-tail length of 270 to 310 cm (110 to 120 in) and weigh between 180 to 258 kg (397 to 569 lb), while females range from 240 to 265 cm (94 to 104 in) and 100 to 160 kg (220 to 350 lb).
[4]
[5] In northern India and Nepal, the average is larger; males weigh up to 235 kilograms (518 lb), while females average 140 kilograms (310 lb).
[6] Recorded body weights of wild individuals indicate that it is the heaviest subspecies.
[7]
This population occurs in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, foremost in alluvial grasslands, subtropical and tropical rainforests, scrub forests, wet and dry deciduous forests and mangrove habitats. It is extinct in Pakistan. [8] In 2014, the population in India was estimated at 2,226 mature individuals, [9] 163–253 in Nepal and 103 in Bhutan. [10] |
File:... |
Caspian tiger (P. t. tigris), [1] formerly P. t. virgata ( Illiger, 1815) [2] | The Caspian tiger was described as having narrow and closely set stripes.
[11] The size of its skull did not differ significantly from that of the Bengal tiger.
[12] According to genetic analysis, it was closely related to the Siberian tiger.
[13]
The population inhabited forests and riverine corridors south and east of the Black and Caspian Seas, from Eastern Anatolia into Central Asia, along the coast of the Aral Sea and the southern shore of Lake Balkhash to the Altai Mountains. [11] It had been recorded in the wild until the early 1970s and is considered extinct since the late 20th century. [14] |
File:... |
Siberian tiger (P. t. tigris), [1] formerly P. t. altaica ( Temminck, 1844). [2] Also known as the Amur tiger. | The Siberian tiger has a thick coat with pale hues and few dark brown stripes.
[11] Males have a head and body length of between 190 and 230 cm (75 and 91 in) and weigh between 180 and 306 kg (397 and 675 lb), while females average 160 to 180 cm (63 to 71 in) and 100 to 167 kg (220 to 368 lb). Tail length is about 60–110 cm (24–43 in).
[4]
This population inhabits the Amur- Ussuri region of Primorsky Krai and Khabarovsk Krai in far eastern Siberia, with a small population in Hunchun National Siberian Tiger Nature Reserve in northeastern China near the border to North Korea. [15] [16] It is extinct in Mongolia, North Korea, and South Korea. [8] In 2005, there were 331–393 adult and subadult Siberian tigers in the region, with a breeding adult population of about 250 individuals. [17] As of 2015, there was an estimated population of 480-540 individuals in the Russian Far East. [18] |
File:... |
Indochinese tiger (P. t. tigris), [1] formerly P. t. corbetti Mazák, 1968 [2] | The Indochinese tiger was described as being smaller than the Bengal tiger and as having a smaller skull. Males average 108 inches (270 cm) in total length and weigh between 150 and 195 kg (331 and 430 lb), while females average 96 inches (240 cm) and 100–130 kg (220–290 lb).
[4]
This population occurs in Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, but has not been recorded in Vietnam since 1997. In 2010, the population in Indochina was estimated at about 350 individuals. In Southeast Asia, tiger populations have declined in key areas and are threatened by illegal production of tiger bone for use in traditional medicine. [8] |
File:... |
Malayan tiger (P. t. tigris), [1] formerly P. t. jacksoni Luo et al., 2004 | There is no clear difference between the Malayan and the Indochinese tiger in
pelage or skull size.
[19] It was proposed as a distinct subspecies on the basis of
mtDNA and
micro-satellite sequences that differs from the Indochinese tiger.
[20]
Males range in total length from 190–280 cm (75–110 in) and weigh between 47.2 to 129.1 kg (104 to 285 lb), while females range from 180–260 cm (71–102 in) and 24 to 88 kg (53 to 194 lb). [21] The population was roughly estimated at 250 to 340 adult individuals in 2013, and likely comprised less than 200 mature breeding individuals at the time. [22] The geographic division between Malayan and Indochinese tigers is unclear as tiger populations in northern Malaysia are contiguous with those in southern Thailand. [8] In Singapore the last tiger was shot in 1932; tigers are considered extirpated since the 1950s. [21] |
File:... |
South China tiger (P. t. tigris), [1] formerly P. t. amoyensis (Hilzheimer, 1905) [2] | The South China tiger is considered to be the most ancient of the tiger subspecies and is distinguished by a particularly narrow skull, long-muzzled nose,
rhombus-like stripes and vivid orange colour. Males range in total length from 230–260 cm (91–102 in) and weigh between 130 to 180 kg (290 to 400 lb), while females range from 220–240 cm (87–94 in) and 100 to 110 kg (220 to 240 lb).
[4]
The population is extinct in the wild. [8] Despite unconfirmed reports and some evidence of footprints, there has been no confirmed sighting in China since the early 1970s. [23] As of 2007, the captive population consisted of 73 individuals, which derived from six wild founders. [24] |
File:... |
Subspecies | Description | Image |
---|---|---|
Javan tiger (P. t. sondaica) ( Temminck, 1844) [1] [2] | The Javan tiger was small compared to tigers of the
Asian mainland.
[4] Males weighed 100–141 kg (220–311 lb) and females 75–115 kg (165–254 lb).
[19]
This population was limited to the Indonesian island of Java, and had been recorded until the mid-1970s. [25] After 1979, no more sightings were confirmed in the region of Mount Betiri. [26] An expedition to Mount Halimun Salak National Park in 1990 did not yield any definite, direct evidence for the continued existence of tigers. [27] |
File:... |
Bali tiger (P. t. sondaica), [1] formerly P. t. balica ( Schwarz, 1912) [2] | The Bali tiger was the smallest tiger and limited to the Indonesian island of
Bali. It had a weight of 90–100 kg (200–220 lb) in males and 65–80 kg (143–176 lb) in females.
[28] A typical feature of Bali tiger skulls is the narrow
occipital plane, which is analogous with the shape of skulls of Javan tigers.
[29]
In Bali, tigers were hunted to extinction; the last Bali tiger, an adult female, is thought to have been killed at Sumbar Kima, West Bali, on 27 September 1937, though there were unconfirmed reports that villagers found a tiger corpse in 1963. [30] |
File:... |
Sumatran tiger (P. t. sondaica), [1] formerly P. t. sumatrae Pocock, 1929 [2] | It is the smallest of all living tigers. Males range in total length from 220 to 255 cm (87 to 100 in) and weigh between 100 to 140 kg (220 to 310 lb), while females range between 215 to 230 cm (85 to 91 in) and 75 to 110 kg (165 to 243 lb).
[4] The reasons for its
small size compared to mainland tigers are unclear, but probably the result of competition for limited and small prey.
[12] The population is thought to be of Asia mainland origin and to have been isolated about 6,000 to 12,000 years ago after a rise in sea-level created the Indonesian island of
Sumatra.
[19]
[31]
The population is the last surviving of the three Indonesian island tiger populations. It is listed as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List. By 2008, the wild population was estimated at between 441 and 679 in 10 protected areas covering about 52,000 km2 (20,000 sq mi). [32] |
File:... |
Leo1pard ( talk) 11:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
References
catsg
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).MSW3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mazak1981
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).IUCN
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Burke
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Geptner1972
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Kitchener1999
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
der-tiger
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
@ Leo1pard: the taxonomic table at the bottom refers to the entries in the last column, which allow people to sort the table by related species. Tamtrible ( talk) 22:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Leo1pard: also, I don't want to modify someone else's contribution to the talk page, but... I'd appreciate it if you'd remove the parts of the addition you made that are not actually relevant to the point you're trying to make, like the page views. Or maybe even just replace them with a link to the table you're suggesting we imitate, or something. Tamtrible ( talk) 01:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
While I appreciate the recent enthusiasm of @ Dennis the mennis:, I'm not sure all of the entries he(?) has made are actually valid (there are too many to check easily). Even for the second table, please only include species where there is at least some record of multiple generations of captive breeding outside of zoos (at a minimum, at least one case of an animal with 2 captive bred parents), or where the human relationship with the animal beyond simple predation goes back a minimum of, say, a century. It is not appropriate to include every species where, at least once, some individual has captured a wild animal and made a pet (or draft animal or whatever) out of it. Nor should we include species that have only been captive bred in zoos (or aquariums, which are basically fish zoos), unless they have been captive bred thus for many generations. Tamtrible ( talk) 22:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Dennis the mennis and Tamtrible: On second thought, I do not think that the semi-domesticated section should be here, because that could make things complicated. As in, how many animals have been semi-domesticated? That list could be virtually infinite. Leo1pard ( talk) 03:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Dennis the mennis: Anyways, to store all that information on semi-domesticated animals, you could use a WP:Sandbox, similar to this, you do not need this article to keep your hard work intact. Leo1pard ( talk) 06:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
References
I have removed a number of entries where no good case appears to be made for semi-domesticated or routinely captive-bred status. I only removed species where the claim struck me as doubtful a priori, and where a subsequent check revealed no good indication of such status. I have thus skipped the fishes so far because I don't have a good overview there.
-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 14:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Elmidae: Or should the section on "semi-domesticated animals" even exist? Like I mentioned above, a virtually infinite number of animals could be semi-domesticated. For instance, if I take ants of a number of classifications [a] and turn them into my pets, then can these be mentioned in this article, even I have a reliable source? Leo1pard ( talk) 08:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Notes
References
There are... at least a few entries that appear to be, in essence, re-domestication of a wild animal we previously domesticated (pigs and sheep).
Should we really include those? ... Tamtrible ( talk) 10:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Upon seeing the date of the domestication of Goat changed to approximately 10,000 B.C.E. whereas before it was 8,000 B.C.E> I have looked at the article cited and it does not but the origin of goats at 10,000. B.C.E. but at 10,000 B.P. Before PRESENT. It is a term used by scientists having to do with radioactive dating and carbon dating that uses the start point or zero year as 1950. Therefore to get the B.P. yer in B.C. term you take 1950 and subtract the B.P. year by it. this would give you 8050 B.C.E. Which to be fair COULD round down to 8,000 B.C.E. I Thought this was worthy of a discussion as to whether or not there is confusion in the understanding of terms in this article or weather or n not the date was used correctly. Animlia ( talk) 17:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
For example, I noticed that several of the animals classified as "7: Other animals" are mollusks. There are enough birds listed as "2f: Other birds" that it might be worth finding clades for at least a few of them (possibly Accipitriformes, maybe others). There are enough Testudines (turtles) that we may want to split them off from "3c: Other reptiles". I don't know if there's enough of any one clade of fish or insects to subdivide further.
Thoughts? Tamtrible ( talk) 09:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
There are some... dubious entries on the list, at least in the sense that... I see no mention of captive breeding or anything like it anywhere on their linked wiki page. A few have some ranching of wild-caught individuals or the like, but that's not domestication by any reasonable stretch. But I'd like a second opinion before deleting a bunch of entries, because edit wars are bad.
The candidates so far:
Japanese amberjack
Greater amberjack
European eel (there have been breeding projects, but they have yet to actually succeed)
American eel
Pacific hagfish
Giant grouper
Orange-spotted grouper
Bigeye tuna
Yellowfin tuna
Green chromide
There may be more, if you're not sure of something, feel free to add it to this list for someone else to check. Tamtrible ( talk) 10:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I've been gone for a bit, I just got back. I saw by question about the difference between. B.C. and B.P in citations and how it relates to Goats among other things was deleted and I wanted to ask why?
Animlia (
talk)
17:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I have just reverted about a week's worth of additions by
Dennis the mennis. Frankly, I'm appalled by the sheer amount of crap this editor has managed to insert into the article during this period. Almost everything was sourced to either completely non-indicative asides in unrelated publications, tentative breeding proposals and genetic studies (a particular favourite), and mentions of isolated pet keeping instances. Hardly anything was *semi-domesticated, undomesticated but captive-bred on a commercial scale, or commonly wild-caught, [and] at least occasionally captive-bred
.
These include:
Editors will remember that this isn't the first trip to the rodeo. We already did several sweeps to get rid of recent material that was badly referenced, based on entirely insufficient evidence, or included willy-nilly; a good deal of that is on this archive page. Almost all of it is Dennis' contributions. Not having checked up on what they were adding for the last few months, I cast one quick look in here and find the above. No telling what more lurks below that date (13 January); I set the revert cutoff when I ran out of steam. (I'm aware I reverted at least some useful entries, e.g. fugu. These seem to make up about 5% of additions and may be re-added later.)
I think that with this kind of need for supervision, Dennis the mennis is rapidly turning into a net negative here. I would like to gauge interest among involved editors for putting in a formal AN proposal for an article-specific topic ban.
Pinging: @ *Treker, Tamtrible, and Leo1pard:
-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I... would support a ban *unless* he will agree to certain restrictions. Occasionally he does have useful additions (eg adding information to existing entries). If he will agree that he will not *add* any new animals to the list unless he first lists the animal in question in the talk section, and gets at least one other person to agree that it is, in fact, at least semidomesticated, then he can continue to do the actually useful stuff (adding info to existing entries) without spamming the list with every vaguely possible animal that anyone has ever attempted to captive breed at least once.
Tamtrible (
talk)
18:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok we have a deal. Dennis the mennis ( talk) 16:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Um... Dennis... again, appreciate your enthusiasm, but we kind of had an agreement here. And why did you add "education", "therapy", and/or "tourism" to almost every animal on the list, including adding "education" twice to parrots? Tamtrible ( talk) 16:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Good question well.. parrots can be used for educating would be parrot owners, I visited websites where they use parrots as therapy animals Dennis the mennis ( talk) 11:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC) The reason I added tourism in the domestic animal list because people interact with them on so called farm parks and villages Dennis the mennis ( talk) 11:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not too sure Dennis the mennis ( talk) 20:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Captive breeding and taming isn't the same as domestication. ★Trekker ( talk) 19:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear @ Tamtrible, Elmidae, *Treker, and Dennis the mennis:, I once again removed Asian elephant from the List of domesticated animals, and have, by mistake, asked @ Dennis the mennis: on his talk page, not to submit it again backing it up with his personal opinion, but later noticed he hasnt, why I have apologized for accusing him of this, after I noticed, it was in fact User @ Tamtrible: who once again submitted the Asian elephant, with the follwing comment: added elephants back in. They may not technically be domesticated, but we've been enslaving them for a *long* time...
An edit, which I today once again removed, and if User:Tamtrible cant give a scientific peer reviewed source giving a clear indication this species should have been domesticated, I kindly ask, that he doent submit the species again, without previous discussion here on the talk page.
I run, since 2006 the global database of elephant individuals at www.elephant.se, where I file following records for Europe and Northamerica:
Europe:
“ | The first two generation born elephant in europe was Charkowtschanka born 1958 at Kharkiv Zoo. Rotterdam Zoological Gardens in Holland had the first three unique elephants babies, with both their parents born in Zoos,(Copenhagen and Hannover) so those three were the first true second Zoo generation elephants. | ” |
— Dan Koehl, Elephant captive breeding in Europe |
Northamerica:
“ | Second Zoo generation offspring has been born in the most productive Zoo; Portland in Oregon, and in Calgary, and the first third-generation elephant to be born in the United States was Sam (Samudra) at Portland Zoo. Other productive locations are African Lion Safari in Canada, and Ringling Bros Barnum and Baileys breeding farm. | ” |
— Dan Koehl, Elephant captive breeding in Northamerica |
I have only been able to record a total of 5 or 6 generations, from either species of elephants, and with only a few cases, involving less than 10 individuals, please see
1,
[1] as an example. This is too less numbers to discuss any kind of domestication, full, semi, or whatever. Just because a species has been captured and tamed, during long time, it doesn't make them domesticated, if all specimens were in fact wild.born, and captured and brought in captivity from the wild. And IF this should be a definition of a semi-domestication, a term which Im not sure is backed up by science, then that should cover the African species as well, but also hundreds of wild species, including tigers, lions, zebras, cape buffaloes, Eland antelopes, etc, the list will be longer than that page can handle.
In fact there were more African captured and tamed as Asians since last 20 yrs, but neither species has been bred for more than 7 generations, compared with one example, lions at UK circus with apr 35 generations, and if the African lion should be considered domesticated, or semi-domesticated, whatever that means, then hundreds of species are, and why not any species, humans ever captured and tamed?
This said, my personal opinions in this case, are of course as invalid as opinions stated by anyone else, but I will point out that a submission of a species, based on a personal opinion, with pejorative terms (slaves) stated as: added elephants back in. They may not technically be domesticated, but we've been enslaving them for a *long* time..., can not be considered following Wikipedias rules.
With this in mind, I suggest the list of domesticated species, in questionable cases, should be backed up with reliable scientific sources, not with someones opinion, or personal interpretation. and please bear in mind, if for any reason, a species with 7 generations should be considered domesticated, or semi-domesticated, then, we can most probably identify hundreds of species, which could be considered semi-domesticated, which can hardly be the goals of the list, which focus should be scientific, and presenting facts for readers, and not any kind of experiment in trying to extend definitions for only some species, and others not, as a matter of taste, or personal opinion. Dan Koehl ( talk) 13:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
commonly wild-caught, at least occasionally captive-bred, and tameable. Haven't looked for refs but if there aren't 1001 sources that deal with elephant husbandry in Southeast Asia from antiquity to modernity, I'll eat a mastodon. 4,000 years of use in war, forestry, and culture? That's at least semi-domesticated. Maybe we do need to make the list requirements more strict (based on recent experience...) but I would expect Asian elephants to fall under any reasonable umbrella formulation we can come up with. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 14:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
This page gives a list of domestic animals, also including a list of animals which are or may be currently undergoing the process of domestication and animals that have an extensive relationship with humans beyond simple predation. This includes species which are semi-domesticated, undomesticated but captive-bred on a commercial scale, or commonly wild-caught, at least occasionally captive-bred, and tameable.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)This includes species which are semi-domesticated, undomesticated but captive-bred on a commercial scale, or commonly wild-caught, at least occasionally captive-bred, and tameable.. Bigger font, maybe? All caps? What part of "commonly wild-caught, at least occasionally captive-bred, and tameable" does evade your perception? This is not a list of domesticated species sensu strictu only, it expressively has a wider focus. If this still doesn't penetrate, I'm putting this on hold pending the input of others. (-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 22:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
1. They are captured from the wild on a large scale (eg hundreds of individuals at any one time, not just a few)
2. They are working animals, not just the pets of a few eccentrics
3. 1 and 2 have been the case for over 100 years, it wasn't just a brief fad
I'm out of patience. Some time ago, when it came to light what a vast amount of crap Dennis the mennis was adding to this article, the idea of a topic ban was kicked around [2]. This was deflected with the agreement that Dennis would not add any new species without discussing it on the talk page first. Well, that hasn't worked in the least. Apparently the new modus operandi is to pile on any number of species in the same genus into an existing entry, sourcing be damned: I just reverted this. This is exactly the same approach. Then from the last two months we have this and this, both based on such ridiculously inapplicable sourcing that it has to be either sheer lack of comprehension or intentional misdirection.
I'm tired of having to double-check every action by this editor. They clearly do not have the required understanding of either the source material or the list criteria to usefully contribute in this area. I'm minded to propose a topic ban on animal domestication, or, seeing as that tool now exists, a page-specific block from this article. Pinging previous participants in these discussions: @ Tamtrible, *Treker, and Leo1pard: -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 20:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Elmidae I apologize for adding dubious sources and species on the list, please there's no need to get angry ( talk) 08:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Since Asian elephants is once again submitted as "Semidomesticated" (Captured from wild and tamed), I want to pint out that in this regard, Theres no major difference between them and African elephants, except in mind of people who didnt checked facts. If base for the decision that Asian elephants are semidomesticated, is that they are captured from wild and tamed, thos goes for Africans as well, and in fact: 1. Theres not a large difference in how many years this has been done and 2. The volume of captures may very well lean towards the Africans regarding number on individuals, since the most possible reason why the north African elephant is extinct, is linked to humans, during historical time, when large numbers (hundreds) of African elephants were used in warfare by both Carthage and Rome. If we limit our view to the last 50 years, over 250 elephants has been captured in Africa, tamed and trained for tourism ride industry, which is probably equal to the number of Asian elephants being captured during the same period. Dan Koehl ( talk) 06:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)