Talk:List of domesticated animals/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Please group congenerics, and especially subspecies, if they have similar origins and histories

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?

Non-insular Asia

Subspecies	Description	Image
Bengal tiger (P. t. tigris) (Linnaeus, 1758)	The Bengal tiger's coat colour varies from light yellow to reddish yellow with black stripes. 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). In northern India and Nepal, the average is larger; males weigh up to 235 kilograms (518 lb), while females average 140 kilograms (310 lb). Recorded body weights of wild individuals indicate that it is the heaviest subspecies. 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. In 2014, the population in India was estimated at 2,226 mature individuals, 163–253 in Nepal and 103 in Bhutan.	File:...
Caspian tiger (P. t. tigris), formerly P. t. virgata (Illiger, 1815)	The Caspian tiger was described as having narrow and closely set stripes. The size of its skull did not differ significantly from that of the Bengal tiger. According to genetic analysis, it was closely related to the Siberian tiger. 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. It had been recorded in the wild until the early 1970s and is considered extinct since the late 20th century.	File:...
Siberian tiger (P. t. tigris), formerly P. t. altaica (Temminck, 1844). Also known as the Amur tiger.	The Siberian tiger has a thick coat with pale hues and few dark brown stripes. 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). 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. It is extinct in Mongolia, North Korea, and South Korea. In 2005, there were 331–393 adult and subadult Siberian tigers in the region, with a breeding adult population of about 250 individuals. As of 2015, there was an estimated population of 480-540 individuals in the Russian Far East.	File:...
Indochinese tiger (P. t. tigris), formerly P. t. corbetti Mazák, 1968	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). 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.	File:...
Malayan tiger (P. t. tigris), 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. It was proposed as a distinct subspecies on the basis of mtDNA and micro-satellite sequences that differs from the Indochinese tiger. 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). 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. The geographic division between Malayan and Indochinese tigers is unclear as tiger populations in northern Malaysia are contiguous with those in southern Thailand. In Singapore the last tiger was shot in 1932; tigers are considered extirpated since the 1950s.	File:...
South China tiger (P. t. tigris), formerly P. t. amoyensis (Hilzheimer, 1905)	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). The population is extinct in the wild. Despite unconfirmed reports and some evidence of footprints, there has been no confirmed sighting in China since the early 1970s. As of 2007, the captive population consisted of 73 individuals, which derived from six wild founders.	File:...

Sunda Islands

Subspecies	Description	Image
Javan tiger (P. t. sondaica) (Temminck, 1844)	The Javan tiger was small compared to tigers of the Asian mainland. Males weighed 100–141 kg (220–311 lb) and females 75–115 kg (165–254 lb). This population was limited to the Indonesian island of Java, and had been recorded until the mid-1970s. After 1979, no more sightings were confirmed in the region of Mount Betiri. An expedition to Mount Halimun Salak National Park in 1990 did not yield any definite, direct evidence for the continued existence of tigers.	File:...
Bali tiger (P. t. sondaica), formerly P. t. balica (Schwarz, 1912)	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. A typical feature of Bali tiger skulls is the narrow occipital plane, which is analogous with the shape of skulls of Javan tigers. 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.	File:...
Sumatran tiger (P. t. sondaica), formerly P. t. sumatrae Pocock, 1929	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). The reasons for its small size compared to mainland tigers are unclear, but probably the result of competition for limited and small prey. 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. 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).	File:...

Leo1pard (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Grouping congenerics does not refer to putting them next to each other on the table, it refers to making a single entry out of multiple closely related species, as we have done with, eg, the genets, the stingless bees, the elks, and the rosellas. The order in the list has to do with their presumed date of domestication.

Also, where practical, please condense the common names of congenerics. Eg instead of writing "Blue frog (Froggus bluus), green frog(F. greenus), and orange frog (F. orangus)", write "Blue(Froggus bluus), green(F. greenus), and orange frogs (F. orangus)" Tamtrible (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@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)

Reminder: please *only* include species that have been captive-bred outside of zoos, or that have a genuinely extensive relationship with humans, or should we have a section for semi-domesticated animals?

An Asiatic lion and two Bengal tigers in captivity at Bannerghatta National Park, near the city of Bangalore in Karnataka, India.

A possible Barbary lion at Ljubljana Zoo, Slovenia

Only known photo of a live Cape lion, ca. 1860, Jardin des Plantes, Paris

Transvaal lion in Philadelphia Zoo

A male Ethiopian lion photographed in 2006 at Addis Abeba Zoo

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)

Hrrm. Honestly, every morning when I check my watchlist and see another five entries to this article, I do have to fight an urge to start raising a minor stink. I don't want to denigrate Dennis' work in scouring the literature, but this is getting so inclusive as to be pointless. Things like the secretarybird, based on this flimsiest and most qualified of all mentions, make me think that he's principally running a keyword search on "domesticated", and if there's a hit, in it goes. Or items like the kookaburra - "Fishermen may have kept the Kookaburra as a pet." Honestly? That's the entirety of the inclusion basis? And that's just the referenced ones (there are plenty of unreferenced examples that look doubtful). I think a) some heavy slowing down and b) some judicious weeding is indicated here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:54, 5 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)

Someone might keep Western, Central, Eastern and Southern African lions, Asiatic lions and descendants of Barbary and Cape lions as pets, for example, but why should we care about that, unless they are regularly kept as pets, similar to domesticated cats and dogs? Please take a look at the captive lions whose photographs I put here, is this article going to include these animals as well? Leo1pard (talk) 04:03, 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

@Leo1pard: The "semidomesticated" list exists because of *so* many edit wars. So, so very many. I agree that some people are... a little overenthusiastic in what they include, but if it's not there, people keep adding, and other people keep deleting, things like leopard geckos and elephants. Tamtrible (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed a number of dubious entries

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.

• Addax (only zoo populations)
• Crested bobwhite (no ref)
• Indian palm squirrel (no ref)
• Quagga (useless refs, no indication of routine or even moderately frequent captivity)
• Water vole (no refs, no indication of domesticated status)
• Companion parrot (duplicative of other species listed)
• Laughing kookaburra (useless ref)
• Secretarybird (useless ref)
• Virginia oppossum (useless ref)
• Tayra (no ref)
• Kinkajou ("occasional exotic pets")
• Burchell's and Grant's zebra (isolated pet instances)
• South american tapirs (congratulations, FOUR useless refs - zoo populations and isolated pet instances)
• Snow leopard (useless ref)

--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 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)

Yes, currently one could shoehorn almost any "exotic pet" in there, provided a few accounts of pupping in the converted basement can be dredged up (and let's face it, what with the ongoing vogue for keeping exotic pets, that can be done for almost any species you care to name). I think a case could be made for making the inclusion criteria for this list quite a lot stricter. I'd advocate for changing the criterion to something like predominantly or widely captive-bred outside of zoos and conservation establishments, then make clear that "widely" means peafowl across a continent, not two jaguarundi in the garden shed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please put the "companion parrot" entry back. It's there to help keep people from adding every single parrot species that anyone has ever kept as a pet. The idea, basically, is that the relatively *major* parrot species kept as pets are listed, but the "companion parrot" entry is there for all the rest. I think I agree with the rest of your deletions, however. Tamtrible (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask what the reference for that was? Leo1pard (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall... Tamtrible (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually it didn't have a reference. I assume you are right that some such catch-all would be useful, but even the parent article Companion parrot is so lightly sourced that I can't find anything suitable there. Rustled up a reasonable academic reference as replacement. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd also include, as valid grounds for inclusion on the list, if it is *extensively* kept as a pet/work animal/livestock animal, and at least occasionally captive bred. If you can routinely buy it at, say, Petsmart, it probably belongs on the list somewhere, even if most of the animals actually kept as pets were wild-caught.

And, of course, elephants are kind of the special exception, since we're not actually captive-breeding them at all afaik, but whatever our relationship with them is, it's been going on for thousands of years. Tamtrible (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Notes

References

Should we really include redomestication of a previously domesticated species?...

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)

Possible confusion on the Diffence between B.C. and B.P. and how it relates to goats

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)

Should we review the "other" taxonomic categories to see if we should add any new ones?

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)

Candidates for removal

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)

Given the entirely reckless addition of entries to that page in the past (you will recall the last sweep), I'd say go for it. I bypassed the fish last time because I really don't know much about fish domestication; glad someone is looking into it. The burden here is on demonstrating domesticated status, not presuming domestication until disproven. If the refs aren't there, chuck it out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a second set of eyeballs, in case I missed something obvious. Tamtrible (talk) 11:02, 27 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)

Proposing a topic ban for User:Dennis the mennis

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:

• blue crab (tentative breeding study)
• sambar (no indication whatsoever)
• two anoa species (isolated pet instances)
• brush-tailed porcupine (tentative breeding study)
• dungeness crab (tentative breeding study)
• coconut crab (tentative breeding study)
• aldabra tortoise (reintroduction)
• jaguarundi (no fucking evidence whatsoever, links to a rhino article)
• edible dormouse (rare pet)
• Asian small-clawed otter (beats me, useless reference)

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)

Bonus: one other edit snuck in between my first removal and the revert, for common duiker. This is sourced to this article. Which does not mention the species (or any duikers at all). Oh, the guy in the photo appears to be holding a duiker-like antelope... so that's your evidence? I rest my case. - Further: actually it's a springbok kid. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• I can't say personally that I remember any real run ins with this editor. If this is a long running problem I would take it to ANI.★Trekker (talk) 15:51, 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)

That would be fine by me; I'd like the topic ban idea out there as an option if no other arrangement can be found, but whatever works. This article just has to cease being their personal blue sky playground. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd say... if he edits again (outside these restrictions) without commenting on this thread, and coming to some kind of meaningful agreement with the rest of us, we should pursue a topic ban for him. Tamtrible (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. It would be a sensible move by them to at least comment here. Dennis the mennis, how about it? Can we arrive at some quality insurance agreement here? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok we have a deal. Dennis the mennis (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Glad we can work together on this. Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but your indescriminacy (is that a word?) is... rather less so. And edit wars are annoying. Tamtrible (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Cool :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:09, 29 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'd say you can really only count "education" as a purpose if they're used for something besides... educating people on how to take care of *that specific animal*. And as far as "tourism"... can you find an *example* of a "farm park" or the like that has each animal you added "tourism" to (I'd accept petting zoos, I suppose), then remove it from all the rest? And similarly for "education". I'd maybe allow it for animals that are *commonly* kept as "class pets" (which would... mostly be the more common pet rodents and rabbits, afaik), but if you don't have some other reasonable justification, it's just a pointless and meaningless addition to the list that clutters things up. Similarly, I'd only leave "therapy" on any that are relatively commonly used as "therapy animals", not every animal that anyone has ever, once, claimed was a "therapy animal". Does that seem reasonable to you?... Tamtrible (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not too sure Dennis the mennis (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Then could you please go through and try to clean out some of the stuff you're not sure about, rather than making someone else do it? What I'd suggest you do is, for each word, do a Google search that's something like "Education (x)", for each animal where you added "education" (and the same for therapy and tourism). Scan the first page or two of results. If you don't see at least, say, 3 pages that are about educational, therapeutic, or tourist use of the animal, not counting using the animal as a way to educate people in how to care for *that specific animal*, I'd remove the word. Like, I'd leave "therapy" for dogs, since therapy dogs are a relatively common thing. If I search for "therapy dog", I get tons of results about people using dogs for therapy of some sort, including a Wikipedia page. But if I search for "tourism dog", most of the results are things about how to travel with your dog, and so on. The only reference I saw on the first page that could *possibly* be considered dog-based tourism was a reference to dog sledding, which is basically covered by "transportation" or "draft".

I think most of us can agree that "purpose" should not include *every* possible purpose that any person anywhere has ever used the animal for, just ones that are at least *mildly* common. If you can't either find several, unrelated references to an animal being used for a particular purpose, or a specific reference indicating that it is or was *commonly* used for that purpose in a particular area/culture/field, you shouldn't include it.

Please, try to clean up your entries. If you make the rest of us do it for you, we're likely to start pursuing that topic ban we discussed earlier. Tamtrible (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A lot of these animals aren't really "domesticated"

Captive breeding and taming isn't the same as domestication.★Trekker (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a slope between "not at all domesticated" and "fully domesticated". If you see something on the first list that isn't fully domesticated, move it to the second list. If you see something on the second list that you're reasonably certain has only been tamed, not actually captive bred to at least *some* degree (with elephants as a special exception for Reasons), feel free to remove it. If you see a lot of them, please comment here first so we don't get edit wars. Tamtrible (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There are no special exception with Asian elephant, its not domesticated, and not more "semi" than any other species which is captured in wild and tamed, besides, during the last 20 years maybe more African than Asians were captured and tamed. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The special exception for Asian elephants is because, even though we've just been capturing them from the wild rather than breeding them, we've been doing it, on a fairly large scale, for *centuries*. That's got to have at least *some* kind of effect. Tamtrible (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, since Alexander the greats successors, arranged capture and trainig of northafrican elephants. L. phaoensis, a tradition later followed by romans and Carthago. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Um... in what way does that contradict what I said? To quote from http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Captive_elephants : "Tame elephants have been recorded since the Indus Valley civilization around 2,000 BCE." We may not be breeding them, but we've been interacting with them pretty extensively for a *long* time. Tamtrible (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong again, we ARE breeding them, and theres now some 7 generations, of course not a promille from a domestication process, and we are breeding both species. Ot of the topic domestication, Theres no major difference between African and Asian elephants. Except maybe, in the mind of laymen. who still believe Africans have not been tamed,.and did look into what kind of elephants Hannibal Barcas took over the alps. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Asian elephant

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)

I would consider Asian elephants to be within the ambit of this article based on the stated criterion of 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)

(In contrast, presence or absence of multi-generational breeding in zoos really has no bearing on inclusion on this list at all. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC))

Still, I interpret your reply as only an opinion. And African elephants were tamed and trained, and used in warfare, already during Alexander the great. So, how many hundreds species can we reach, that were captured, and trained since the last 3 000 years? I could mention pretty many... But what counts, is any scientific mention of E. maximus or L. africana being domesticated? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, @Elmidae:, the article you referred to above Captive elephants, which you renamed to 4,000 years of use in war, forestry, and culture, already then included this text, which you may have missed to read: Selective breeding of elephants is impractical due to their long reproductive cycle, so there are no domesticated breeds.. Since the intro on that page gave desinformation regarding captive breeding, supplied by animal rights activists, Ill update the article with relevant information, but please notice, I have nothing to do with the sentence including there are no domesticated breeds. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to insist on disregarding 75% of the inclusion criteria. Here, let me paste that again:

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.

We don't require domesticated breeds or selective breeding. Constant wild capture followed by taming and use as work animals is just fine. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia require verified sources, in this case, sources with scientific affiliation, which I can see that you are aware of, reg other issues. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

...so you are giving up on the "doesn't qualify" angle and are jumping over to "sources missing"? Well that's easily enough amended (as you must know perfectly well) and I will see to it right away. And no, "reliable sources" does NOT mean "scientific publication" - although in this case it is trivial to find these. Professional news and non-scientific literature sources are entirely sufficient. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Here we go, first few reasonable hits:

• Bist, S. S.; Cheeran, J. V.; Choudhury, S.; Barua, P.; Misra, M. K. (2002). "The domesticated Asian elephant in India". In Giants on our hands. Proc. Int. Workshop on the domesticated Asian elephant (PDF). pp. 129–148. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
• Crawley, Jennie AH; Lahdenperä, Mirkka; et al. (2019). "Investigating changes within the handling system of the largest semi-captive population of Asian elephants". PloS one. 14 (1).
• Locke, Piers (2011). "The ethnography of captive elephant management in Nepal: a synopsis" (PDF). Gajah. 34 (1): 32–40.

--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting the problem. yes, some people including the authors of the article you found, have misinterpreted the meaning of domestication, which in the article domestication is described as: Domestication is a sustained multi-generational relationship in which one group of organisms assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another group to secure a more predictable supply of resources from that second group. But apart that from the fact that the authors of that single article from 2002, does not describe any kind of domestication process at all, not one reference to why those elephants should be regarded as domesticated, but they simply use the term in the nineties as label and synonym for captive elephants (like some people use the term viking for Northmen), We shall not use Wikipedia to invent new definitions, of established terms, with a concise meaning. If I catch and train some rare parrot, which was never bred in captivity, it doesnt suddenly make that species domesticated, even if some other people did it sometimes, during the last 2 000 years. Lets follow biology and scientific methods, when discussing this topic. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how often I need to paste this: 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)

I agree. Yes, there are a lot of animals that have been *occasionally* captured, but the *extent* to which we have captured Asian elephants (and, in the past, African elephants, so I'd be fine with adding those back in too) merits noting. It is true that they haven't really been captive-bred, per se, outside of zoos (and in previous discussions, we agreed that captive breeding in zoos doesn't count, other than perhaps things like petting zoos), but the fact that *so many* of them have been captured from the wild, and that they are such a *large* part of human culture in some areas, justifies their inclusion, at least on the second part of the list, despite the fact that we have not intentionally altered their breeding. If nothing else, which ones we capture, at what ages, and so forth has likely had at least *some* effect on their breeding, given that we've been doing it on a nontrivial scale for centuries, even if it's not a matter of us intentionally breeding certain individuals with each other. User:Dan Koehl, I think you may need to give way on this one.

As far as the argument that there are "hundreds of species, which could be considered semi-domesticated" if we use the commonly-captured-and-tamed criteria... can you identify more than 10 species (if that many) that meet *all* of the following criteria?

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

The rest of us have collectively agreed that, even if Asian elephants don't meet the *strictest* criteria for domestication (which is part of why they aren't on the *first* list), whatever they've been to us, they've been it long enough and extensively enough that they fit well within the scope of this page. I'm putting them back. Tamtrible (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

We need that topic ban for Dennis the mennis

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)

@Elmidae: Best way to go about this is an ANI.★Trekker (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@*Treker: Yes, definitely at ANI; I'm just gauging you guy's opinions - don't want to put a lot of effort into a proposal that gets no traction. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I would support, and I think if you created an ANI many people would chime in, Dennis has not kept his promise to not add dubious info to this page.★Trekker (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the nuts and bolts of how to do it, but, yeah, he (presumably he) keeps adding poorly sourced, unsourced, or just plain random crap. The enthusiasm is genuinely appreciated, but the utter lack of filtering... isn't. Though if you can allow him to post on the talk page, just not the actual page (I don't know if that's a thing we can do), then he could still *propose* additions, and if any of them seem worthwhile, a more... temperate person can add them to the actual page.Tamtrible (talk) 06:56, 28 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)

• I'll sort the proposal out tonight. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh man, I just can't muster the enthusiasm for kicking up a shitstorm now (comparatively small-scale, but AN/I stuff never stays very well contained). Dennis the mennis, just - stop this nonsense. If you are unable to correctly assess sources, then please stay away from this article. I promise that next time you insert unsourced or uselessly sourced stuff, I'll make myself be a right bastard about this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

May I offer a suggestion, Dennis the mennis? If you aren't sure where to find solid sources or whatever, or aren't sure if a source is relevant (and... um... you don't have a great track record on either of those things, so I'd err on the side of assuming that you're wrong in almost every case), then make a list of the changes you'd like to make *here*. Then one of the more cautious editors can look at your proposed addition, and either approve or deny it. It's an extra step for you, but better than adding a bunch of stuff, then having us manually remove same, which is annoying for *everybody*. If it's on the talk page as a proposal, and other editors decide it's not appropriate or not relevant, then we don't actually have to *remove* it, we can just say "no". And it's probably easier to say "I want to add species X, due to reference Y" in the talk page than having to go through the editing table, making sure everything is in the right place and so on. Which is another reason to do it this way: less chance of someone misplacing a line or something and ending up messing up the table somehow. And you can do all of your approved edits as one batch, which is also probably easier. I promise that I will give due consideration to any proposed addition that you make, whenever I next get on Wikipedia for editing purposes, so you're not waiting forever to make the changes you want. Tamtrible (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Elephants

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)

If there are sources for that, by all means add African elephants. But sources we need. - That makes me realize that the sourcing for Asian elephants in the list is rather ridiculous at this point, so adding those I dug up some weeks ago. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)