Talk:List of domesticated animals/Archive 6

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 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Species for deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Along with the already mentioned Arabian ostrich, Arabian oryx, Dorcas gazelle, and Nubian ibex, the following is a list of species that I think should go Bubal hartebeest one unreliable reference to Ancient Egyptians

Wood duck – no citations
Bar-headed goose – no citations
Egyptian mongoose – no citations
Neotropic cormorant - no citations
Lesser fruit fly - lab grown
Water flea - lab grown
Yellow-bellied glider – no citations
Common beisa – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Small-billed tinamou – no citations
Red-winged tinamou – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Hornbills – no citations
Horned owls – no citations
Glossy ibis – no citations
Puna ibis – no citations
Wild boar – domesticated version is the pig
pacas – no citations
Desmarest's hutia – no citations
Norway lemming – no citations
Nilgai – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Chinkara – no citations
Crab-eating fox – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Side-striped jackal – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Red flour beetle – research
Pacific beetle cockroach – research
Amphioctopus – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Mangrove horseshoe crab – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Atlantic horseshoe crab – no citations
Indo-Pacific horseshoe crabs – no citations
Spanner crab – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Edible dormouse – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Purple dye murex – no citations
Banded dye-murex – no citations

Jameel the Saluki (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I would leave the things used for research *on subjects besides themselves*. For example, fruit flies are used to teach genetics (ask anyone who's had a college genetics lab about breeding fruit flies). If they're used as a model organism, not just researched because people want to figure out how to get them to (edit:)not be a crop pest or whatever, then they are being bred for human use to a degree that is relevant for this page. Excluding zoos and reintroduction programs is reasonable, since in both of those the primary *goal* is generally "keep them as close to "wild type" as practical", but labs? As long as they're actually bred in labs for research on things besides just their personal breeding cycles or whatever, I'd say it's valid.

So definitely leave the fruit flies (seriously, *so* many genetics classes). Also, afaik fruit flies are bred as animal feed. Some of the smaller lizards and such eat them. And on the other ones listed as "research", I'd say check the page for the animal and see if they're used as a model organism or whatever. In fact, on all of them, please take a quick look at the individual page for the organism and see if there's genuine discussion of them being ranched/captive bred pets/otherwise actively used by humans extensively enough to warrant inclusion, and wait 2 weeks to see if anyone else wants to come to their defense, then... nuke away. Tamtrible (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I checked a few for you. Agree on the horned owls, yellow bellied glider, and the two tinamous, and probably the banded murex; disagree on the water flea; on the fence about the purple murex. But, again, please wait 2 weeks for other objections. Tamtrible (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

And, actually, given the time of year, maybe go a little longer than 2 weeks. People are busy with Christmas and whatnot. But that should give you enough time to do a quickie "due diligence" check on your candidates. Tamtrible (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

sorry for doing a billion edits, I'm procrastinating. Red flour beetle, keep, it's used as a model organism. Beetle cockroach, I'd say nuke. I'd keep the Atlantic horseshoe crab (the page mentions aquaculture), but the others can probably go. Tamtrible (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Some points

the article needs to describe and define how domestication works from valid references. Then, and only then, can a decision be made what constitutes progress towards domestication. On my knowledge of domestication and genetics I would strongly argue that the breeding involved in laboratory work bears no resemblance to the process of domestication other that humans having some effect on the selection.
Wikipedia isn't edited by waiting for objections. If there isn't a way of validating the claim, it is deleted. Every claim of domestication needs to have a supporting citation, if there isn't one then any editor is in their right to have the material removed if they believe the material is incorrect and a supporting reference cannot be found.
I am expecting you might have numerous objections to the proposed list, but you need to clarify why you object. So, for example, it looks as though you think that purple murex might stay. You need to present the evidence, and importantly, references to support your conclusion.
I've already thoroughly gone through the list. "Due diligence" is already done.
All of the horse-shoe crabs have the same issue. Whilst there may some farming for meat (I haven't found any references for that), the main reason for harvesting is for elements of their immune system to be used in laboratory assays. So far all attempts to breed in captivity have resulted in a degradation of the immune system resulting in inadequate yields. There are ongoing attempts, but this is purely at a reasearch level, and populations that are grown are destroyed. Currently harvesting is done on wild types.

Jameel the Saluki (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This page has a significant history of edit wars. To avoid a repeat, without having to do something clunky like partially protecting the page or something, I think it's a good idea, when proposing a major edit like removing a bunch of entries, to give people a little time to say "No, that shouldn't get deleted".

Also, given the nature of the page, essentially every entry has an internal reference--that is, there is a page on the organism itself. For the second table, anything that might eventually lead to domestication reasonably qualifies, as long as there is significant captive breeding going on (rather than just proposals to do same). That includes breeding for research, as long as it's extensive. It may be different from other forms of domestication, but virtually every reason for domestication is different from every other reason. Domestication of a pet is different from domestication of livestock, which is different from domestication of a working animal...

In the objections I have raised, the "reference" I am using is the page for the animal itself. Given what is on the pages for the organisms, I would object to the removal of the water flea, and the red flour beetle. I would... advise you to look at the page yourself for the purple murex, and the Atlantic horseshoe crab (both pages explicitly mention some form of captive breeding). I will do a similar check on all of the others, I would appreciate if you would wait until I have the time to do so before you delete anything. This will also give any actual experts on the various animals a chance to weigh in. Seriously, this page has had *so* many edit wars, and part of how we've gotten them to stop is essentially agreeing to page-internal rules for making any major changes. Which includes waiting a bit to give objectors a chance to weigh in. Plz play along?... (not asking for you to leave the page a mess forever, just... give people a bit of a chance to say "No, wait, that's definitely under extensive human use, and it's captive bred, see right here?") Tamtrible (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Firstly I'm not going to be making any changes soon, I am relaying the best way to manage edit warring on lists like this (indeed on any page). There aren't going to be any experts coming, that's why the need for references in vital, that's where the expert opinion lies. Please read WP:BURDEN and WP:WINARS. Even "experts" are not allowed to give their opinion as this is unverifiable personal research WP:OR. So in short, without meaning to sound rude, what your opinion is, or anybody's opinion is not important. All claims must be verifiable. Having said that there will always be some judgement calls, but the amount of leeway should be as minimal as possible.

On to the specific examples (and I did read the pages)

murex - the only mention on the page is "evidence suggests that intensive breeding by the ancient Minoans resulted in pierced shells" with no supporting citation of reference. This is a completely unreliable source and cannot be used WP:WINARS

Atlantic horseshoe crab - This says ", refine the process of collecting blood from the animals (including through aquaculture)," and has a reference. The reference (which I had already read) states that an experimental trial of aquaculture was set up, which is what I mentioned in my last reply. I didn't find another reference, but importantly, I shouldn't be going through the article trying to find it, the citation should be on this page.

I'll make another comment that I am sure will cause concern. It appears that the meaning behind the columns is unclear. If the meaning is unclear to both of us, then it will be unclear to the reader, and the column is not providing useful encyclopedic information. These columns need to either be deleted, or clarified. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we do need to clarify, or at least standardize, the columns. Though I think they are not that unclear in meaning, just in... precise definition, as it were. But we should do that as another entry, not in this one, this will be busy enough. Given what you said on the murex and the crab, I am disinclined to defend them further. I said I was "on the fence" about the murex, and I confess I'm a bit lazier than you about checking sources, I've pretty much taken any "This was farmed/ranched/etc" notation as adequate, without checking the actual sources linked. I'm also going to recap the list, with comments, and with the other ones you mentioned so they're all in the same place. I will edit the list as I check things.

Wood duck – no citations--agree
Bar-headed goose – no citations--agree
Egyptian mongoose – no citations--weak evidence, no strong opinion
Neotropic cormorant - no citations--agree
Lesser fruit fly - lab grown--I say keep
Water flea - lab grown--I say keep
Yellow-bellied glider – no citations--agree
Common beisa – citation unhelpful, no other citations--agree
Small-billed tinamou – no citations--agree
Red-winged tinamou – citation unhelpful, no other citations--agree
Hornbills – no citations--agree
Horned owls – no citations--agree
Glossy ibis – no citations--agree
Puna ibis – no citations--there is a reference, don't know how good it is.
Wild boar – domesticated version is the pig--agree
pacas – no citations--lowland, agree. Mountain, brief mention of captivity, but I agree it's weak.
Desmarest's hutia – no citations--agree
Norway lemming – no citations--agree
Nilgai – citation unhelpful, no other citations--*extremely* weak evidence of historical domestication, I probably wouldn't remove it but I have no objections to others doing so
Chinkara – no citations--agree
Crab-eating fox – citation unhelpful, no other citations--agree
Side-striped jackal – citation unhelpful, no other citations--agree
Red flour beetle – research--disagree, I say keep
Pacific beetle cockroach – research--agree
Amphioctopus – citation unhelpful, no other citations--agree
Mangrove horseshoe crab – citation unhelpful, no other citations--agree
Atlantic horseshoe crab – no citations--no strong opinion
Indo-Pacific horseshoe crabs – no citations--agree
Spanner crab – citation unhelpful, no other citations--mention of failed attempts, but no successful ones, agree
Edible dormouse – citation unhelpful, no other citations--sounds like there was no captive breeding, either modern or historical, and it doesn't have the historical weight or complexity of our association with elephants, so agree
Purple dye murex – no citations--no strong opinion
Banded dye-murex – no citations--agree

Fuegian dog--keep, as long as the domestication record is clear, even though it's extinct now

Gayal--looks fairly solid to me, I say keep.

Arabian ostrich--domestication record is not really in evidence in the main article, I'm neutral

Arabian oryx--zoo breeding for reintroduction, so not domesticated. Agree.

Dorcas gazelle--agree

Nubian ibex--agree

I'll try to get to the rest within a week or 2. Tamtrible (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC) first few done Tamtrible (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC) plinked at it again. Tamtrible (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC) That should be the last, let me know if you want to do another round and I'll help check 'em. Tamtrible (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Species for deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Along with the already mentioned Arabian ostrich, Arabian oryx, Dorcas gazelle, and Nubian ibex, the following is a list of species that I think should go Bubal hartebeest one unreliable reference to Ancient Egyptians

Wood duck – no citations
Bar-headed goose – no citations
Egyptian mongoose – no citations
Neotropic cormorant - no citations
Lesser fruit fly - lab grown
Water flea - lab grown
Yellow-bellied glider – no citations
Common beisa – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Small-billed tinamou – no citations
Red-winged tinamou – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Hornbills – no citations
Horned owls – no citations
Glossy ibis – no citations
Puna ibis – no citations
Wild boar – domesticated version is the pig
pacas – no citations
Desmarest's hutia – no citations
Norway lemming – no citations
Nilgai – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Chinkara – no citations
Crab-eating fox – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Side-striped jackal – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Red flour beetle – research
Pacific beetle cockroach – research
Amphioctopus – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Mangrove horseshoe crab – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Atlantic horseshoe crab – no citations
Indo-Pacific horseshoe crabs – no citations
Spanner crab – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Edible dormouse – citation unhelpful, no other citations
Purple dye murex – no citations
Banded dye-murex – no citations

Jameel the Saluki (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I would leave the things used for research *on subjects besides themselves*. For example, fruit flies are used to teach genetics (ask anyone who's had a college genetics lab about breeding fruit flies). If they're used as a model organism, not just researched because people want to figure out how to get them to (edit:)not be a crop pest or whatever, then they are being bred for human use to a degree that is relevant for this page. Excluding zoos and reintroduction programs is reasonable, since in both of those the primary *goal* is generally "keep them as close to "wild type" as practical", but labs? As long as they're actually bred in labs for research on things besides just their personal breeding cycles or whatever, I'd say it's valid.

So definitely leave the fruit flies (seriously, *so* many genetics classes). Also, afaik fruit flies are bred as animal feed. Some of the smaller lizards and such eat them. And on the other ones listed as "research", I'd say check the page for the animal and see if they're used as a model organism or whatever. In fact, on all of them, please take a quick look at the individual page for the organism and see if there's genuine discussion of them being ranched/captive bred pets/otherwise actively used by humans extensively enough to warrant inclusion, and wait 2 weeks to see if anyone else wants to come to their defense, then... nuke away. Tamtrible (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I checked a few for you. Agree on the horned owls, yellow bellied glider, and the two tinamous, and probably the banded murex; disagree on the water flea; on the fence about the purple murex. But, again, please wait 2 weeks for other objections. Tamtrible (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

And, actually, given the time of year, maybe go a little longer than 2 weeks. People are busy with Christmas and whatnot. But that should give you enough time to do a quickie "due diligence" check on your candidates. Tamtrible (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

sorry for doing a billion edits, I'm procrastinating. Red flour beetle, keep, it's used as a model organism. Beetle cockroach, I'd say nuke. I'd keep the Atlantic horseshoe crab (the page mentions aquaculture), but the others can probably go. Tamtrible (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Some points

the article needs to describe and define how domestication works from valid references. Then, and only then, can a decision be made what constitutes progress towards domestication. On my knowledge of domestication and genetics I would strongly argue that the breeding involved in laboratory work bears no resemblance to the process of domestication other that humans having some effect on the selection.
Wikipedia isn't edited by waiting for objections. If there isn't a way of validating the claim, it is deleted. Every claim of domestication needs to have a supporting citation, if there isn't one then any editor is in their right to have the material removed if they believe the material is incorrect and a supporting reference cannot be found.
I am expecting you might have numerous objections to the proposed list, but you need to clarify why you object. So, for example, it looks as though you think that purple murex might stay. You need to present the evidence, and importantly, references to support your conclusion.
I've already thoroughly gone through the list. "Due diligence" is already done.
All of the horse-shoe crabs have the same issue. Whilst there may some farming for meat (I haven't found any references for that), the main reason for harvesting is for elements of their immune system to be used in laboratory assays. So far all attempts to breed in captivity have resulted in a degradation of the immune system resulting in inadequate yields. There are ongoing attempts, but this is purely at a reasearch level, and populations that are grown are destroyed. Currently harvesting is done on wild types.

Jameel the Saluki (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This page has a significant history of edit wars. To avoid a repeat, without having to do something clunky like partially protecting the page or something, I think it's a good idea, when proposing a major edit like removing a bunch of entries, to give people a little time to say "No, that shouldn't get deleted".

Also, given the nature of the page, essentially every entry has an internal reference--that is, there is a page on the organism itself. For the second table, anything that might eventually lead to domestication reasonably qualifies, as long as there is significant captive breeding going on (rather than just proposals to do same). That includes breeding for research, as long as it's extensive. It may be different from other forms of domestication, but virtually every reason for domestication is different from every other reason. Domestication of a pet is different from domestication of livestock, which is different from domestication of a working animal...

In the objections I have raised, the "reference" I am using is the page for the animal itself. Given what is on the pages for the organisms, I would object to the removal of the water flea, and the red flour beetle. I would... advise you to look at the page yourself for the purple murex, and the Atlantic horseshoe crab (both pages explicitly mention some form of captive breeding). I will do a similar check on all of the others, I would appreciate if you would wait until I have the time to do so before you delete anything. This will also give any actual experts on the various animals a chance to weigh in. Seriously, this page has had *so* many edit wars, and part of how we've gotten them to stop is essentially agreeing to page-internal rules for making any major changes. Which includes waiting a bit to give objectors a chance to weigh in. Plz play along?... (not asking for you to leave the page a mess forever, just... give people a bit of a chance to say "No, wait, that's definitely under extensive human use, and it's captive bred, see right here?") Tamtrible (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Firstly I'm not going to be making any changes soon, I am relaying the best way to manage edit warring on lists like this (indeed on any page). There aren't going to be any experts coming, that's why the need for references in vital, that's where the expert opinion lies. Please read WP:BURDEN and WP:WINARS. Even "experts" are not allowed to give their opinion as this is unverifiable personal research WP:OR. So in short, without meaning to sound rude, what your opinion is, or anybody's opinion is not important. All claims must be verifiable. Having said that there will always be some judgement calls, but the amount of leeway should be as minimal as possible.

On to the specific examples (and I did read the pages)

murex - the only mention on the page is "evidence suggests that intensive breeding by the ancient Minoans resulted in pierced shells" with no supporting citation of reference. This is a completely unreliable source and cannot be used WP:WINARS

Atlantic horseshoe crab - This says ", refine the process of collecting blood from the animals (including through aquaculture)," and has a reference. The reference (which I had already read) states that an experimental trial of aquaculture was set up, which is what I mentioned in my last reply. I didn't find another reference, but importantly, I shouldn't be going through the article trying to find it, the citation should be on this page.

I'll make another comment that I am sure will cause concern. It appears that the meaning behind the columns is unclear. If the meaning is unclear to both of us, then it will be unclear to the reader, and the column is not providing useful encyclopedic information. These columns need to either be deleted, or clarified. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we do need to clarify, or at least standardize, the columns. Though I think they are not that unclear in meaning, just in... precise definition, as it were. But we should do that as another entry, not in this one, this will be busy enough. Given what you said on the murex and the crab, I am disinclined to defend them further. I said I was "on the fence" about the murex, and I confess I'm a bit lazier than you about checking sources, I've pretty much taken any "This was farmed/ranched/etc" notation as adequate, without checking the actual sources linked. I'm also going to recap the list, with comments, and with the other ones you mentioned so they're all in the same place. I will edit the list as I check things.

Wood duck – no citations--agree
Bar-headed goose – no citations--agree
Egyptian mongoose – no citations--weak evidence, no strong opinion
Neotropic cormorant - no citations--agree
Lesser fruit fly - lab grown--I say keep
Water flea - lab grown--I say keep
Yellow-bellied glider – no citations--agree
Common beisa – citation unhelpful, no other citations--agree
Small-billed tinamou – no citations--agree
Red-winged tinamou – citation unhelpful, no other citations--agree
Hornbills – no citations--agree
Horned owls – no citations--agree
Glossy ibis – no citations--agree
Puna ibis – no citations--there is a reference, don't know how good it is.
Wild boar – domesticated version is the pig--agree
pacas – no citations--lowland, agree. Mountain, brief mention of captivity, but I agree it's weak.
Desmarest's hutia – no citations--agree
Norway lemming – no citations--agree
Nilgai – citation unhelpful, no other citations--*extremely* weak evidence of historical domestication, I probably wouldn't remove it but I have no objections to others doing so
Chinkara – no citations--agree
Crab-eating fox – citation unhelpful, no other citations--agree
Side-striped jackal – citation unhelpful, no other citations--agree
Red flour beetle – research--disagree, I say keep
Pacific beetle cockroach – research--agree
Amphioctopus – citation unhelpful, no other citations--agree
Mangrove horseshoe crab – citation unhelpful, no other citations--agree
Atlantic horseshoe crab – no citations--no strong opinion
Indo-Pacific horseshoe crabs – no citations--agree
Spanner crab – citation unhelpful, no other citations--mention of failed attempts, but no successful ones, agree
Edible dormouse – citation unhelpful, no other citations--sounds like there was no captive breeding, either modern or historical, and it doesn't have the historical weight or complexity of our association with elephants, so agree
Purple dye murex – no citations--no strong opinion
Banded dye-murex – no citations--agree

Fuegian dog--keep, as long as the domestication record is clear, even though it's extinct now

Gayal--looks fairly solid to me, I say keep.

Arabian ostrich--domestication record is not really in evidence in the main article, I'm neutral

Arabian oryx--zoo breeding for reintroduction, so not domesticated. Agree.

Dorcas gazelle--agree

Nubian ibex--agree

I'll try to get to the rest within a week or 2. Tamtrible (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC) first few done Tamtrible (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC) plinked at it again. Tamtrible (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC) That should be the last, let me know if you want to do another round and I'll help check 'em. Tamtrible (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate use of a definition for domestication

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The article on Domestication provides two recent attempts at a definition (and they do seem to be the most notable), that are slightly different

Domestication is a sustained multigenerational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in order to secure a more predictable supply of a resource of interest, and through which the partner organism gains advantage over individuals that remain outside this relationship, thereby benefitting and often increasing the fitness of both the domesticator and the target domesticate.
it is a coevolutionary process that arises from a mutualism, in which one species (the domesticator) constructs an environment where it actively manages both the survival and reproduction of another species (the domesticate) in order to provide the former with resources and/or services (Figure 2). This allows for increased fitness for the interacting organisms within the mutualistic relationship, leading to the evolution of traits that ensures the stable association of domesticator and domesticate across generations.

The first thing to note about these definitions that is raised in criticisms is that it excludes commensals, which is thought to be the largest factor in the domestication of the dog (and probably cat), and undermines the claim of humans being domesticated. The advantage for the use in this article is that we are also excluding that form of domestication, otherwise every species would be included.

The next point leading to some ambiguities is the requirement in both definitions for the domesticate to be benefitting from this arrangement, from an evolutionary perspective. In the usual domesticate this is obvious as human bred domesticates overwhelm the world's population of animals and escapes into the wild are frequent. However there is a question over laboratory bred species. It is unclear that there is a benefit to many of the species bred in laboratories - there are small numbers, many defects are deliberately introduced, there is little escape into other populations. However the fitness may be interpreted as in the 2nd definition as simply providing a stable association. For the purposes of laboratory breeding I think that the requirement for a stable association is needed, thus many laboratory bred creatures would meet that criteria, but not all. If note the term "laboratory domestication" is used in the literature, but rarely, and only when comparing to the wild type.

I think a definition coaslescing the main features of both above definitions would be better than what there is at the moment with regards animals undergoing domestication. An important point made in Domestication of animals is "Domestication should not be confused with taming."

Neither definition provides much insight into what full domestication is. The explanation currently used "In order to be considered fully domesticated, most species have undergone significant genetic, behavioural and morphological changes from their wild ancestors," is too vague and it assumes we know enough about the wild ancestor. In typical usage it means that the creature has changed enough to be productive to work and where focus on characteristics other than pure yield are not required. But this is a relative meaning and relates to the ease of being able to change the creature relative to like creatures. Miriam and Webster has it as "fit for domestic life". The idea of using taxonomy to solve the issue is reasonable, but has the problem that if the wild type is long extinct and has no taxonomy it makes the current version by definition only semi-domesticated. The other problem is that the taxonomy is still very uncertain in this area. Whether a creature is considered fully domesticated or not is one of a cultural basis. If the creature is seen as suitable it is fully domesticated, if it is seen in need of improvement it is not. Thus, although all these other lines are useful and can provide supporting evidence, the characterisation of fully domesticated must ultimately come from the direct opinion of authoritative sources. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jameel the Saluki all of this sounds reasonable to me, but the fact that even experts don't necessarily agree about what constitutes domestication is part of why we have the two separate tables. it is intended to be the case that the first table is species that are generally agreed to be domesticated, by experts. the second table is anything that might either be domesticated or be undergoing the process of domestication. since we do not necessarily have access to all experts in the universe, in practice this essentially means that the second table is anything which has at least one marker of likely domestication such as extensive captive breeding, extensive human use beyond simple predation, and so on.

Also, given the size of the table, I'm inclined to be not too strict about having the actual reference be on this page rather than on the source page for the animal. if for no other reason than so that the list of references isn't as long as the rest of the page. Sure, it's great when the reference is here, but I'm somewhat disinclined to delete just because it's not here. 2600:1011:B04D:9B8F:FD64:36FE:BD74:6B78 (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

" second table is anything which has at least one marker of likely domestication such as extensive captive breeding, extensive human use beyond simple predation, and so on." - but this definition needs to be sourced. Wikipedia editors cannot invent their own definition of what domestication means merely because there isn't strict consensus in the sources. The characteristics, as they currently stand in this article, I disagree with.

With regards the lack of references, please read WP:BURDEN and WP:WINARS. In addition to what is stated in those guidelines the other reasons for a requirement for an in article citation are

verifying the selection becomes easier
the corresponding articles change, and it would require anybody that is monitoring this table to then monitor every species listed in this table.
having large numbers of reference is not a reason not to have them

Jameel the Saluki (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, there are a lot of definitions of the term "domestication" out there.

Here are a few:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domestication

the act or process of domesticating something or someone or the state of being domesticated: such as

a

the adaptation of a plant or animal from a wild or natural state (as by selective breeding) to life in close association with humans

(the other definitions listed are irrelevant to this topic)

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/domestication Domestication is the process of adapting wild plants and animals for human use

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534722000891 (key relevant quote:) a coevolutionary process that arises from a specialized mutualism, in which one species controls the fitness of another in order to gain resources and/or services.

Given that, and given that this table is kind of split into "These are definitely 100% domesticated" and "These might be in the process of being domesticated, or have a domestication-like relationship with humans", I think it's reasonable to have a somewhat loose definition of what constitutes domestication here, at least for the second table.

A reasonable plain-English gloss of that last quote, at least in terms of human domestication of animals, would be something like "When humans control or direct the reproduction of an animal in order to get some product and/or service from it". So this would include basically any captive breeding where we're doing it for our own benefit, rather than for the animal's benefit. It would probably also include any sufficiently prolonged or extensive association we have with an animal (like, say, elephants) that does not involve killing the animal, most of the time, even if there is no captive breeding involved.

Since that is a long and ambiguous thing to say, we've kind of boiled it down to a de facto definition of "We either breed it in captivity in nontrivial numbers, and use it for some purpose; or we have a long-standing association of some kind with it that typically does not involve killing it." With the latter being there mostly to include Asian elephants, which... we're technically more enslaving them than domesticating them, but we have been doing it for literally millennia, so we've probably had at least some effect on their fitness/genetics/etc, even if we have never actually captive bred them in quantity.

But this would include not only (captive bred) pets and working animals, but animals that we ranch (as long as they're captive bred at least some of the time), animals that we use as model organisms in labs, animals we use for pest control, and so on. As long as 1. we're captive breeding it (or it falls under the elephant exception), and 2. we're getting some human benefit from doing so (rather than doing it altruistically, like captive breeding programs in zoos), then it at least *might* be a little bit domesticated.

So, are we on the same page here?... Tamtrible (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's work out a definition/specific criteria for the "problem" columns.

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Jameel the Saluki has, rightly, taken issue with the vagueness of two of the columns, the "extent" column and the "degree of domestication" column. As I am the one who added both (iirc, it was a while back), I know the intent of the columns, but I agree that they are, at present, vague and undefined. So let's work on that.

The first one is intended to, roughly, indicate the number of wild vs feral vs domesticated-and-presently-in-captivity animals of the species. For the wild ones, the most reasonable measure is probably their "conservation status" rating (eg "least concern"), though I'm OK with using "common" for those that are "least concern", and we should probably work out an agreed upon common term for the other levels (eg "endangered"="rare", "critically endangered"="very rare")

Domestics and ferals are a little trickier, since the listed conservation status of most domestics is "domesticated" afaik. But the main things we're trying to get at are "Are there more or less of them than their wild relatives", and where there is a significant disparity, "Are there enough of them in captivity that they'd be considered least concern/endangered/etc if they were to be treated as a separate species?"

Actual numbers (at least, to the nearest order of magnitude or so) would also be reasonable, where we have them.

I think I mainly included this to highlight interesting cases like, say, crested geckos, that are common enough in captivity that they are (afaik) routinely available in non-specialist pet stores, but that were once thought to be *extinct* in the wild.

For the other column, it's essentially intended to indicate how different domesticated individuals are from wild ones.

There are 2 basic sets of criteria--physical, and behavioral.

For physical, the scale is something like:

Minor: either no readily visible changes, or just more common occurrence of rarer wild-type patterns or the like (eg more albino individuals in captivity than in the wild)

Moderate: Significant changes to color and/or pattern, and/or minor changes to form (eg somewhat larger or smaller, minor differences in face shape or limb length) or "accessory" body parts (like horns, feathers, or hair)

Major: Major changes to form or "accessory" body parts (dogs are a great example of this... huge changes in size, in limb length, in face shape, in coat type, etc)

Similarly, for behavioral, the scale should be something like:

Minor: No or trivial differences in behavior (eg slightly more tame or social)

Moderate: Distinct differences in behavior (eg much more tame or social), but few or no truly novel behavior types compared to wild-type

Major: Entirely novel behavior patterns compared to wild type animals (again, dogs are a great example--retrieving game, herding, etc are behaviors that basically just aren't *found* in wolves)

This is probably somewhat harder to strictly quantify than the "extent" column, but as long as we're consistent about applying the criteria, I think it's reasonable and has value.

Examples of a few animals I know off the top of my head:

Leopard geckos: moderate physical changes, minor behavioral changes

Cats: moderate to major physical changes, moderate to major behavioral changes

Dogs (as stated): major physical changes, major behavioral changes

pigeons: moderate to major physical changes, minor to moderate behavioral changes

Other valid uses for this column:

Mentioning what *specific* changes were made from the wild-type (eg "plumage changes", "reproductive changes")

Indicating that a species is only considered semi-domesticated, or is captive bred but not (yet) noticeably changed from the wild-type animal

Indicating that a species is considered "tame" (that is, "naturally" friendly towards, or at least not afraid of, humans--eg puppies will seek out human attention even if they haven't been socialized much)

I went through and nuked the complete garbage in that column (what the bleep is "tame/held in captivity" even supposed to *mean*?), to hopefully encourage any interested individuals to put in actual useful information instead.

Tamtrible (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What order are the species on this list supposed to be in anyway?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was planning to add conures and amazon parrots to this list (under tame and partially domesticated), but I can't figure out where to insert them. The list isn't alphabetical, it's not by species or family, or even by year of domestication. Am I missing something here (quite possible!)? Or have people just been adding stuff wherever they wanted at random? Iloveparrots (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

In theory it's by date of domestication, except for the species without a clear date of domestication. Since there is a catch-all for domestic parrots, please only add those if they are especially common captive parrots. And if you'd be willing to take a look at the existing parrot entries, and make sure they, at a minimum, still have the correct picture (at one point I was removing things that were not listed as captive bred on their source pages, and I think there were some parrots I removed, I know there were some other birds), and any other fact checking you feel confident in doing, that would be appreciated. Tamtrible (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

specifically, I had removed: yellow-crested and Major Mitchell's cockatoos (not sure if they have a congeneric they were paired with), Lillian's and Grey-headed lovebirds (those do have a congeneric), Elegant parrot, and everything I mention here:

Blue-eyed cockatoo: second opinion also wanted, they are mentioned as "great pets", but no mention of captive breeding, just (illegal) wild capture. Much likewise for Red-vented cockatoo, they are mentioned as being captured as pets and captive bred for reintroduction programs, but not captive bred as pets; also Long-billed corella, Little corella, and Western corella (pethood mentioned, but no captive breeding info). No mention of pethood at all for Solomons cockatoo. The rest in that entry (2, I think) are fine. Tamtrible (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

English

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Domestic animal name 122.181.105.165 (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

More proposed nukes

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I will include a condensed recap of the prior proposed nukes I entirely agree with.

Wood duck, Bar-headed goose, Neotropic cormorant, Yellow-bellied glider, Common beisa, Small-billed tinamou, Red-winged tinamou, Hornbills, Horned owls, Glossy ibis, Wild boar, lowland paca, Desmarest's hutia, Norway lemming, Chinkara, Crab-eating fox, Side-striped jackal, Pacific beetle cockroach, Amphioctopus, Mangrove horseshoe crab, Indo-Pacific horseshoe crabs, Spanner crab, Edible dormouse, Banded dye-murex, Arabian oryx, Dorcas gazelle, Nubian ibex (I omitted the ones I am not sure enough of to delete myself, but the ones I stated no objection to, others may delete with my good will)

New candidates for nuking:

Gemsbok--no mention of human use (other than hunting) or captive breeding

Serval--brief mention of pethood, no mention of captive breeding

I got as far as the hill myna (which is not a candidate for deletion), more later. These are "ripe" on the 18th of January (by my usual "wait 2 weeks" standard). Tamtrible (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

All of the above got nuked. Tamtrible (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Turkish snail (no mention of farming/cultivation), though Roman snails are fine

Bettas: does anyone know if slim, Toba, Penang, peaceful, emerald green, spotfin, or Howong bettas are actually bred in captivity? They're all mentioned (to varying degrees) as being "in the aquarium trade"/kept as pets, but none of those are mentioned as being captive bred. I'll leave these a little longer than 2 weeks, but if no one can substantiate them being captive bred, they're going to get nuked eventually. Fish expert wanted

Red-billed leiothrix: are they ever captive bred, or just wild-caught? bird expert wanted

Southern giant pouched rat: same question re: captive breeding. Rodent expert wanted

More later. Tamtrible (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It is later.

Lady Amherst's pheasant--no indication of captive breeding, or even of individuals kept in captivity to any significant extent (just "introduced populations")

Tian Shan wapiti--no indication of captivity

Shortfin molly: is it bred in captivity? Fish expert wanted

Rainbowfish: same question, same expert needed

Tiger salamander--minimal mention of captive breeding, no mention of anything like pethood or research (barred tiger salamander is fine, though)

Stopped at the "companion parrots" entry. Though I'm a bit dubious of the palm cockatoo, anyone have a reference or whatever for them being captive bred?... Tamtrible (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: the palm cockatoo - is this useful? The World Parrot Trust also has some info about breeding them in captivity (click the 'care' tab). Iloveparrots (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Since the "companion parrot" entry exists for the entire clade, and the first link you gave me explicitly says that they're not that commonly kept as pets, I'm... kind of inclined to remove them anyways. And the "care" tab on your second link gives some details on how they breed, but doesn't really clarify whether or not they breed well in captivity.

You likely know more than most about what parrot species are commonly kept as pets. Since the "companion parrot" entry exists to more or less cover the entire clade, care to pick out, say, the 25 most common species kept as pets, so we can remove at least most of the rest? Maybe leave a representative sample of any particularly divergent subgroups, with an "and related species" (as I did with the bearded dragons), just to cover all the bases. Tamtrible (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Nuked the early January set, leaving the late January set for now since there are some questions.

New candidates:

I'm officially listing the palm cockatoo as "no real indication of captive breeding outside of zoos", and thus up for deletion unless someone tells me otherwise. Especially since the "companion parrot" entry exists. In fact, because of that, I'm going to be a little tougher on individual parrot listings.

Eastern kingsnake. The other subspecies are listed on the page as popular, that one isn't.

Similarly, Mexican, black, Honduran, Nelson's, and Sinaloan milk snakes aren't specifically mentioned as captive bred.

Also, if someone would congeneric the kingsnakes and milk snakes, that would be lovely. And any citation for grey-banded king snakes being used as pest control?...

Gray rat snakes aren't listed as pets or captive bred.

Ripe on March 6th. Tamtrible (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)