Talk:List of domesticated animals/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The rules

Yes, it is difficult at times to say exactly where an animal stops being wild and starts being a domesticated animal. People may use the word differently. For example, some may consider tameness to be the mark of a domesticated animal. Wikipedia, however, says that this idea is wrong. See here, from which I quote:

"Domestication (from Latin domesticus) is the process whereby a population of animals or plants is changed at the genetic level through a process of selection, in order to accentuate traits that benefit humans. It differs from taming in that a change in the phenotypical expression and genotype of the animal occurs, whereas taming is simply the process by which animals become accustomed to human presence. In the Convention on Biological Diversity, a domesticated species is defined as a "species in which the evolutionary process has been influenced by humans to meet their needs."[1] Therefore, a defining characteristic of domestication is artificial selection by humans."

Therefore, please remove from/do not add animals to this list all animals that do not fit Wikipedia's definition.

If you don't agree with this definition, go to the article domestication and change it so that it includes any animal that makes a great pet, is commonly kept as a pet, is kept in captivity, is farmed, is ranched, is easily tamed, or whatever. Right now, none of these factors distinguishes a domesticated animal from a wild one. Be warned, that article is well watched, and so you had better be armed with good WP:RSes and specific citations if you are to change it successfully.

On this list, we should have only those animals that fit Wikipedia's definition. And at the moment, Wikipedia's definition states that, unless humans have changed the animal at the genetic level by a process of artificial selection, unless and the animal is a creation of man, not nature, to the extent that experts use the word "domesticated" when they speak of them, an animal is not domesticated.

Using alternative defintions is a violation of NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH; i.e.: injecting our take on things as opposed to simply reporting the perspectives of experts. Violating WP:OR is wrong. If we allow original research, it sets us off on a slippery slope to chaos. Chrisrus (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

But how much artificial selection do you need for a species to count as "domesticated"? Are a few generations of captive-bred individuals with a few almost imperceptible differences from wild type enough? Or does the species need to be substantially unlike wild-type animals? Is a species like the elephant, that we have tamed for hundreds of years, and influenced the breeding of (at least somewhat), but never truly domesticated in any behavioral sense, "domesticated"? If there is no longer a wild population of the animal (as was thought to be the case for a while with crested geckos), does the captive-bred population automatically count as domesticated even if it's undergone no real artificial selection?

At the very least, I think any species that has been captive-bred outside of zoos for more than one generation is at least *arguably* domesticated, even if it seems to be 100% wild type. And any species that we have influenced the breeding of for more than a few generations (like, say, the farmed bison) is also arguably domesticated. (not a matter of using a nonstandard definition, just a matter of figuring out how much selection is necessary for a species to count as domesticated, which is a fuzzier matter)

Which is why I urge everyone to move any dubious cases to the second table rather than deleting them, unless there's absolutely no indication on the main page for the animal that it is farmed, kept as a pet, used as a work animal, or otherwise substantially influenced by humans. Once I get some kind of guarantee that the second table won't be deleted yet again, I will go through the first table and shift out some of the dubious or suspect entries, like mopane worms... Tamtrible (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

These are all good questions, you are right, but not for us to answer. Leave such things to the experts. If they call an animal "domesticated", we should as well, and if not; not. It's that simple. Anything else will lead to chaos. Think of it as "List of Animals that Experts Call Domesticated Whether They Really Are Or Not". Chrisrus (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Even then, it's not 100% clear. I'm the "expert" who added the section on pets to the leopard gecko article. I didn't use the word "domesticated", mostly because it didn't fit grammatically into the information I was trying to convey (mostly that they are very frequently kept as pets, are usually captive bred, and have been bred into many distinct morphs). But I consider them to be domesticated, at least arguably. There are other cases, I'm sure, where people who wrote the article for the animal did not use the actual word "domesticated", but did give indication of extensive human use, and probably consider the animal in question at least arguably domesticated. And there are other cases where, for example, a species used to be domesticated thousands of years ago, but no longer is (like some of the antelope things listed), or where only a tiny population is domesticated (like the moose that someone keeps adding). I think we have to use some judgement, not just look for the magic "d" word, and use its presence or absence as a barometer. I agree that only things that explicitly *say* they are domesticated in the actual article should be in the first section, but I think there are a lot of definitely or arguably domesticated critters where the writers of the article didn't include that specific word; and cases where that word is present, but a critter doesn't really count as domesticated (or at least, not any more, and/or not generally). All of those grey-area cases should go in the second section, where they're there for people to peruse, but they're not cluttering up the list of unarguable "true" domestics. Tamtrible (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For inclusion on this list, it should be demonstrable one way or another that experts call it that. One way to do this is to check what the article says and just go by that. If the article doesn't explicitly say that it is, there are other ways. You could cite a source proving that experts call it that.

YOu are right about "looking for the magic "d" word". It has to be present, but it also has to be used in a cerain way. The obvious example of "d" word presence not being enough would be if it says "this animal is NOT domesticated", but there are many other ways that might justify "iffy" status or some kind of caveat, such as saying that domestication projects are underway; there was once a domesticated version of the animal but there isn't anymore; there are a small number of domesticated individuals, and so on. Some of these might merit some kind of "iffy" listing on this list as a result, other might exclude it. All I'm saying is that inclusion of the "d" word be a necessary condition without which an animal should not be included. Chrisrus (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Chrisrus. Each entry on the list must have a WP:RS showing that artificial selection for domesticity has occurred. The breeding has to be for behaviors or morphology that allows for better functioning in captivity. As an example, if I breed some snakes and get a new color, I have not domesticated these snakes. They will still bite the heck out of me. Speciate (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's still too complicated. Inclusion should just be the same as saying "experts call it a domesticated animal" for whatever reason. Period. That would go even if we all roundly agree that the animal should be considered domesticated and we can't for the life of us understand why experts don't call it that, but they don't. Chrisrus (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason they don't is domestication is rare. It requires artificial selection, demonstrable artificial selection. Let us assume we are on the same wavelength and begin discussing particular cases. Speciate (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And I'd agree that the magic D word needs to be there for something to go on the first list. That seems like a reasonable restriction--the first list should be for things that are unquestionably domesticated, by any reasonable definition. But I think it is not unreasonable to say that something at least might be domesticated if it's described in its main article as a pet, as livestock, or in any other way as under substantial human cultivation (outside of zoos and a handful of rich eccentrics). If it's been captive bred for more than a few generations, then it's probably undergone at least some artificial selection, if only for individuals willing and able to breed in captivity. If we have been using it as a work animal for generations, even without captive breeding, we have probably altered its genome to suit our purposes, if only by feeding useful individuals and not feeding useless ones. I'd agree that we should remove any animal that doesn't have clear, listed history with humans outside of simple predation. But if we have been raising it as food, riding it, bringing it into our homes, doing lots of research on it, or otherwise making substantial use of it for more than a few of its generations, it at least *might* be domesticated.

Or, to put it another way: for the first list, we're saying "experts say this is domesticated". For the second list, we're pretty much just saying "someone who's not just smoking the funny stuff argues that this is domesticated." Sound reasonable to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 07:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. By now you know what I think we should do, so I'll not repeat that again. Instead, I'll and try to find a compromise with you all and a way forward.

Let's do this: the first main list; what do you want to call it, the "no-doubts" list? Let's talk about what should be on the first, no-doubts list first, ok? Let start with the first and second columns. Any animal that has different first and second collumns should be on the "no doubts" list. No animal with different first and second columns should be removed from that list. Ok, that eliminates most of them. Second, what else should definately stay on the first list? Any animal with the word "Domestic" or "Domesticated" in their first column, such as the Domesticated silver fox. Then, that's it. Take everything, absolutely everything else and put it on the second list. Then we can start proposing animals for promotion from the second to the first list. If all of you agree that an animal should definately be promoted from second list to first, you can promote it. We don't need actually %100 perfect unanimity if one person is just clearly not being reasonable.

Please, everyone, agree to this compromise above so we can stop all the thrashing and start making some progress here. Chrisrus (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. And, new additions (unless, again, there's a different page for the domestic and non-domestic versions) should go on the second list, then if relevant be proposed for promotion.

And, of course, we can start discussing criteria for the second list. I'd propose that the minimum standard is that there must be at least one of the following on the main page for the animal: some form of the word "domesticated", a mention of their extensive use as livestock, a mention of their extensive use as pets (as in, not just a few eccentrics), a mention of their extensive use as work animals, a mention of their extensive use as captive research subjects, or a mention that they have been captive-bred for many years and are used for some other purpose. Further, if the d-word is not present, there should be at least some indication that they are captive-bred, or humans in some other intentional way control their breeding (time, frequency, and/or choice of mates). With a possible special exemption for elephants, even if we're not breeding them, the fact that we've been interacting with them extensively for the last 4000-odd years suggests that they're something at least a *little* like domesticated... Tamtrible (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Will you be WP:BOLD and see to it? Remember, at least initially, two simple rules for the first list: first two columns are different; and/or first column says "domestic(ated)." Then, later, we can talk about moving more from List Two to List One. Chrisrus (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Kissing_gourami

Ok, that's great! Thank you very much. Now we're getting somewhere! I filled in the known part (the genus) of the wild ancestor of the Siamese fighting fish. So that's a keeper. Before we move on to the second list, please let's check the Kissing Gourami to find out why it's first and second collumns are different. Please let's read Kissing Gourami. The article mostly describes a captive animal, but notice this section Kissing_gourami#Habitat_and_ecology. To my reading it seems to be describing the same animal in the wild. There are no Siamese fighting fish in the wild, but there seem to be plenty of Kissing Gourami in the wild. The species of the wild and domestic gourami seem to be the same, Helostoma temminckii. So the captive H. temminckii and the wild H. temmincii which it comes from seem to have the same taxon; there is no sign of a different species or subspecies name, something we cannot say about Koi or Siamese fighting fish. Therefore, shouldn't the first and second collumns for the gourami be the same? Chrisrus (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable change to me, go ahead and make it? Tamtrible (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I took a stab at it. I think now it's clear it should be moved down. Chrisrus (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

feel free... Tamtrible (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Chrisrus (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Candidates for first-list status

Western honey bee, both camels, yak, mouse, rat, guppy

(also, I'd say that as long as at least 2 people agree and no one objects, anything on this list can be bumped to the first list after, say, a week?) Tamtrible (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, more than a week has gone by so it's time to move most of these up. Chrisrus (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yak

Good. First of all, I agree about the Yak. Let's look at it's article. It says "(t)he yak (Bos grunniens for the domesticated, Bos mutus for the wild animal – but see below) is...." But I personally have seen enough and don't feel the need to read any more. Bos grunniens is clearly a creation of humans, created from B. mutus. So let's express that fact in the first two columns and move it on up straight away as there doesn't seem to be any room for debate here: if it weren't for people, there wouldn't be any B. grunniens to talk about, so no one could possibly successfully argue that it's not a domesticated animal. B. mutus is what experts call the "Wild Yak" and B. grunniens is the "Domesticated Yak". Chrisrus (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done

Rat

If we could have the articles Fancy rat and/or Lab rat in the first column and Rattus norvegicus in the second, that'd work well as all three articles seem to use the "D" word. Actually, it looks like fancy rats were created from lab rats, and lab rats from wild R. norvegicusChrisrus (talk)

I'd actually put both rats in the first column, though as one entry (that is, "Fancy rat <link> and lab rat <other link>) Tamtrible (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Like that? (<- referring to recent edit) Let's move it up! Chrisrus (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Chrisrus (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Mouse

If we could have the article Fancy mouse in the first column and Mus musculus in the second, I can't see anyone objecting. The article Fancy mouse clearly states that it's the domesticated form of the species. Chrisrus (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)  Done Chrisrus (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bactrian Camel

Article is very clear that almost all are "domesticated", but almost all is not all. We could put the name, linked to article, then in parentheses the word "majority" or some such. I'm not sure. So long as there are wild Bactrians with the same taxon, it doesn't seem right to just say this is a domesticated animal. Let's think about it for a bit. We also have to look at the other camel. Chrisrus (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Chrisrus (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And, actually, it looks like all or virtually all camels *are* domesticated, it's just that some of them have subsequently gone feral, which is a slightly different thing.

A feral dog is still, genetically, domesticated... it's just living outside of human protection. Same for feral cows, feral horses, feral camels... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 05:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Western Honey Bee

Apis mellifera has many entries here for different subspecies, is that necessary? Can we prove that experts consider them a domestic(ated) animal? Searches for "the D word" failed at the article Western Honey Bee. I can't support moving it up to the first list at this time. All the others you have mentioned here I support moving up. Chrisrus (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Are there any subspecies of Apis mellifera which only live in the wild? Why do we need multiple entries for different subspecies of honeybee? Chrisrus (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to merge the various sub-species of bee into one listing. Also the 2 elephant listings...

More candidates (and you never addressed guppies... though, I just noticed they don't have the D-word on their page, I left a note on the talk page)

Peafowl (they were legally ruled to be domestic fowl)

Budgerigars (the page doesn't actually have the D word, but it explicitly lists differences between wild and captive ones, and I've left a note on the talk page)

Cockatiels (same situation as the budgies) Tamtrible (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, on the cockatiels, there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockatiel_(aviculture) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 18:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I donno about bees. I was trying to answer my own question above and it seems there are subspecies of Honeybees Apis mellifera that have never been kept or used by humans at all. That's a confusing situation because there are many, many subspecies and most but not all have articles of their own. If we just list A. mellifera, we would be saying that they're all domesticated and they don't all seem to be.

Eh, I never understood this as "every member of every species listed on this page is domesticated", just "members of this species have been domesticated". Maybe we can add a note to the effect of "Only some sub-species", if you want, but I kind of figured that was implied by the fact that the wild and domestic animals are the same species... Tamtrible (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a problem. The way I see it, the first column is all domesticated and the second column is the wild animal from which is comes. I don't see why we need two columns on the second list. If we list "The Common Example Bird (Examplus birdicus)", we say that anything by that taxon is a domesticated animal. If we say "The Common Example Bird (Examplus birdicus) in part, or some such, as you seem to suggest, we don't say that all animals by that taxon are domesticated. The second list doesn't need two first columns because anything with different first and second columns automatically gets put on the first list. Chrisrus (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

But, if we don't keep the same 2-column structure, it will become much more of a pain to move things from the second list to the first (or vice versa). I think a simple note of "some varieties" or whatever should be enough to clear up any confusion about whether there are non-domesticated individuals of the same species. Though the other column I suggested below would be potentially interesting in its own right, I suspect, at least where we *have* the information. (some things to go in it, if someone besides me makes the column: crested geckos are nearly extinct in the wild, but common in captivity; the 2 antelope things on the second table have basically no current domesticated individuals) Tamtrible (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Though, of course, the note is only needed for things that get first-column status. It's sort of implied for everything in the second column. Tamtrible (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Guppies

I thank you for your efforts to determine the extent to which it is true that guppies are domesticated animals. It is clear to me from reading the article that it is largly true, but the article does seem to imply that there still are some populations of guppies in the wild, so it's not clear that it's %100 true that "Poecilia reticulata = domesticated animal" We should be careful to add "in part" and/or whatever text is necessary for the reader to understand the situation. Chrisrus (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like guppies get the nod?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I found the citation easily by using Google Scholar. I should have thought of doing that earlier! Anyway, we should use that fact and citation to improve the article "Guppy", which seems to possibly need some re-organization if it's going to cover both the domesticated guppy, about which there are tons of available WP:RSes, and the wild variety, about which there doesn't to me to be very much available. This citation could also be used to cite the existence of a third: the feral guppy. I also want to note that if we move items from the second to the first list, we should be careful to differentiate the first and second columns in such a way that we are making true implied statements about the taxonomy, as I have tried to do with the guppy item but you may want to clarify or improve. Chrisrus (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Poecilia reticulata is one of the best studied wild fish. I find it disturbing that you would make such a judgement. Speciate (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do go ahead and add lots of interesting information about wild guppies to the article Guppy, which doesn't seem to know nearly as much as you about wild guppies. Perhaps there should be a separate article about wild guppies and domesticated guppies and even possibly one about these feral guppies, if the article seems to be getting too long and splitting it seems to be the best thing to do. Chrisrus (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Elephants

With regard to the elephants, it's pretty clear that one species is a wild animal and the other may be semi-domesticated or domesticated in part. Experts seem to be fighting about that, and so sources conflict. I don't know enough about it. We should find some experts.

Eh, I know elephants don't belong on the first list. The only thing I'm saying is that we should merge the 2 elephant entries, since they're both for the same species of elephant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 04:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we remove the "this needs an expert" bit?... Tamtrible (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ornamental Fowl

With regard to these birds you mention, I think you'll be successful because based on what you say you will be able to find some way to cite it well enough to make a stable edit to that effect on each one's article. For example, if peafowl were legally ruled "domestic fowl", all you have to do is find that law and cite it and then any fact challengers will have to stand down in the face of such a powerful citation as a rule of law. However, in the area where they come from, south Asia, some may still be wild animals and so they'll also be only domesticated in part or across much of their range or some such. Chrisrus (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You misspelled it.

Again, I don't think we need to do more than mention that wild ones still exist. The mention of peafowl as domestic is on the article, for the other 2 I left a note in the talk section, hopefully someone who actually knows about them will make the edit... Tamtrible (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a column that's something to the effect of "extent in wild vs captivity" to indicate whether the species is mostly domesticated (like dogs or cats), mostly wild (like foxes), or somewhere in between, or the ancestral species is flat-out extinct (like cows). And that would also add informational value to the page.

Opinion? Tamtrible (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

More candidates for elevation: American minks (the D word is on the page, and it mentions that domesticated minks are larger than wild ones); Java sparrow (listed as "threatened" in the wild, differences between wild and captive birds noted, though the D word's not in the article; I left a note in the talk section); Corn snakes (have the D word, and a long discussion of different morphs) Tamtrible (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The Rusty-spotted cat

Thank you for teaching me that the Rusty-spotted Cat, when taken into captivity, makes a great pet. Why do you think it is, though, that the same experts who teach us this fact do not use the word "domestic" (or "domesticated," even with the prefix "semi-") to refer to it? I don't know for sure, but I think I may have an idea:

The thing is, domesticated plants and animals such as dogs or corn are not naturally-occuring. They don't exist in nature. We made the domesticated plants and animals. They owe us their existence in their present forms. Domesticated plants and animals are creations of man and exist only because we created them out of some othercreature that did exist in nature.

Some wild animals, such as skunks, may make fine pet straight out of the wild. Some domesticated animals, such as dogs selected for viciousness over many generations, may not. That's not a determing factor as to whether it's domesticated or not. Making a fine pet doesn't seem to cause experts to either call an animal "domesticated" or not. It seems to depend on whether they would have existed in the form they are in now without human artificial selection.

Be that as it may, the fact is that even though experts tell us that the Rusty-spotted cat and others make fine pets, the experts have not chosen to call them domestic animals. That fact alone is enough for us not to call them that by adding them to the list of domesticated animals. Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to report the facts as we find them in the WP:RSes. Chrisrus (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely with Chrisrus. His pleas have been consistent throughout all of the above discussions. "Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to do or die." (I venture to add that we who "watch" likely number significantly less than the 600.) Jeff in CA 19:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-order main list

The main list is chronological...until the end, where camels and other ancient domesticates suddenly appear. Maybe these were late additions to the list, but it really messes things up.202.179.19.24 (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's because of various kerfluffles (read the talk section for some of the high notes) about the first vs second lists. Feel free to move things around as appropriate, just keep first-list things on the first list, and second-list things on the second list. Tamtrible (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

i'm pretty sure that some silkworms have chanced pretty much from their natural relatives — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kantamana (talk • contribs) 18:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to change that section if you have better information, then. Tamtrible (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Reorganise this page

This page makes no sense presently, especially as it does not have a section explaining the ratioale according to which animals are included in the lists. What is domesticated? What is semi-domesticated? A number of things make no sense whatsoever:

• 1. We need to make clear where the same animal exists as a wild and a domesticated species. The fact that it can be both does not make it semi-domesticated. Muscovy ducks are listed as semi-domesticated - why? The ones who live with humans are like any other duck, they accept humans, will eat out of your hand, which most cows and sheep will not do.
• 2. There should be a section (list) on pets, livestock, feral population. Most livestock is not 'domesticated' given the chance, they would run away from humans. Silkworms classified as 'domesticated' - if they were released back into the wild, they would not even know the difference; they are wild animals, being kept in captivity.

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Something is considered domesticated if it is genetically changed from its ancestral population. It may or may not be tame (that is, in fact, one of the things the "degree and type of domestication" column is for). As far as silkworms, read the first paragraph of the "Domestication" section on silkworms.

The second table is because there has been considerable controversy in the past about *how* domesticated various species are, and which species are domesticated enough to belong on the list. Rather than endless add/delete/add/delete cycles, I split it into lists of "we are absolutely sure these things are domesticated" and "we are not 100% sure these things are domesticated". Feel free to propose something for promotion to the first list, we have (again, to avoid edit wars) come to the agreement that at least 2 people need to agree before something can be moved from the second list to the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 17:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough - so where do I propose something to be moved to the first list? Muscovy ducks are a just like many of the animals on the first table: domesticted populations (I raised them as child and have seen many in quite a few countries) and wild populations (have never seen them, presume they exist, or so says the artile. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Look up a few sections, to the section entitled "candidates for first list status". Make your case there (try to make it similar to the cases already made in terms of what you use as supporting evidence--in other words, go from what the article on them says, not just personal experience). Propose it (and feel free to comment on the other "open" proposals if you wish), and wait for someone else to agree with you.

Remember, simply the existence of captive-bred populations doesn't necessarily qualify something as "domesticated"... the captive-bred populations need to be in some significant way different from wild populations. Tamtrible (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Style edit needed

Can someone with more wiki-fu than me figure out why there's an extra blank column in the second table, and remove it if possible? Tamtrible (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Huon (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Will people please stop removing "meat"?

Periodically, someone will remove "meat" from the "purpose" column for certain animals, most often dogs, though not infrequently other animals, such as camels.

I know that most of us, at least in the West, don't like the idea that people eat dogs, or other animals that we think of as primarily pets or working animals. But a lot of animals that people in one area or culture consider pets or working animals, people in other areas or cultures consider meat animals. It wouldn't be right for a Hindu to remove the "meat" designation from cows, and it's not right to remove the "meat" designation from things like dogs, either. Tamtrible (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hermit Crabs

Hermit crabs are a good candidate for addition to the captive/semi-domesticated list, as they are fairly common pets. 99.1.188.45 (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)W

Except, are they typically captive-bred, or wild-captured? If the former, they belong on the list, feel free to add them. If the latter... not quite so much. Tamtrible (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

dsblnskbnknb dzb'd bkndbmdn b dbfj fn bkn b bf'dksbnkdsnjdnsrhigns gr asgrn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.242.172 (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Human is a domesticated animal too

The domesticated animal list should include human species too. The domestication process began about 20000 years ago according to fossil records and the brain sizes have shrunk from 1500 cc to 1350 cc (about 10 percent). The human individuals that cannot be used by the authority are not permitted to breed while "usable" ones continue their breed. The domestication process still continues and the ones that can think can easily see this too.

I think that humans are only semi domesticated. Which is why they are so violent and dangerous. I think that due to reproductive selection pressures, the female half of the species is fairly domesticated. However due to the early need to hunt big game and constant warfare, the male half has retained more "wild" traits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.93.25 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

Should we archive some of the older conversations on here? If so, does anyone know how to do it?

I don't think this page is active enough to need *regular* archiving, but it'd be nice to get rid of some of the conversations that are over and done with, so people can actually see the meaningful agreements near the bottom.

Tamtrible (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Cat

Is the scientific name for domesticated cat Felis silvestris catus or just Felis catus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.130.53 (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Domestic vs Domesticated in animal names

Some animals are listed as Domestic Canary, Goat, Goose, Pig, Pigeon, Rabbit.
Others are listed as Domesticated Bactrian Camel, Dromedary Camel, Duck, Guinea Fowl, Hedgehog, Silkmoth, Silver Fox and Turkey.
Is there a good reason for this? I realize there is a reason, the page titles are what they are and would have to be changed to match, but it is an inconsistency, and I believe the word Domestic is more correct. Domestic is the state, domesticate is the action or event.
The gray wolf was domesticated or 'made domestic', and the result is the domestic dog. In fact you could rightfully call a beagle a domesticated gray wolf.
When comparing the two variants, the undomesticated variant would be called a wild animal, and the domesticated variant would be called a domestic animal.
I would further argue that if this page is named List of Domesticated Animals, then the order of the first two columns should be switched. However, if it were renamed List of Domestic Animals, then the second table would have to be deleted entirely. Calling it List of Domesticated Animals allows for the inclusion of species which may be undergoing the process of domestication, or are candidates for domestication.

Mostly I just want to see Domesticated Bactrian Camel, Dromedary Camel, Duck, Guinea Fowl, Hedgehog, Silkmoth, Silver Fox and Turkey changed to Domestic Bactrian Camel, Dromedary Camel, Duck, Guinea Fowl, Hedgehog, Silkmoth, Silver Fox and Turkey. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.128.139 (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair and reasonable change. Feel free to make it. (just the domesticated -> domestic change for individuals, I'd leave the column placement and page title alone) Tamtrible (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Where individual pages are named Domesticated This or That, I have left them alone. At least this list is now correct and consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.128.139 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional columns

I wonder if it would be worth adding a column for the wild ancestor of each animal? In many cases it has a different name, often also a separate article, and it may not be obvious what it is without referring to the article. In some cases the wild ancestor is extinct or is unknown, and this too would be useful information. In at least one case the domestic animal is extinct but the wild ancestor survives.

There is also a considerable amount of inconsistency about which article the animal links to – for example the pigeon is listed as "Rock Dove" but actually links to domesticated pigeon; the rabbit is listed as and links to European rabbit (not domestic rabbit); the guinea fowl links to Helmeted Guineafowl (not domesticated guineafowl). A separate column for the domesticated and wild animals would clarify all this.

It also seems to me that there are two subtly different reasons why someone might want to consult this list. They may be interested in a list of domestic animal species (which is what we have) – or they may be interested in which wild animal species have been domesticated. At present the latter information is not here; a separate coloumn would make both easily available.

There is a great deal of variation in how far domestication has progressed in each case. Some (dog, pig, llama, silk worm) are now markedly different species from their wild ancestors; others (mink, budgerigar, cockatiel, fancy rat) really only differ from the wild animals in colour and tameness; still others are barely if at all distinguishable from the wild animal (mute swan, Mandarin duck). Finally, some species are not really domesticated at all, but are captured from the wild and used by people (Asian elephant, stingless bee, cochineal insect). There is a note in the text about "captive-bred" or "semi-domesticated" animals, but nowhere in the list to put this information. How about a column indicating the degree of domestication? Richard New Forest (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed New Column to Allow Sorting by Taxonomical Group:
Since the table is already very wide, use a 2-character code, such as 1c beside Dog to indicate Mammal: Carnivore
Plus a footnote to aid anyone adding a new species, as follows:
Taxonomic Category: 1a Artiodactyla except Bovidae, 1b Bovidae, 1c Carnivora, 1d Rodentia, 1e Other Mammals, 2a Anseriformes, 2b Galliformes, 2c Columbiformes, 2d Passeriformes, 2e Psittaciformes, 2f Other Birds, 3a Serpentes, 3b Lacertilia, 3c Other Reptiles, 4a Anura, 4b Other Amphibians, 5 Fish, 6a Hymenoptera, 6b Other Insects, 6c Other Arthropods, 7 Other Animals
Each of these categories would (as of 2014 August 18) include the following species, in the following order, albeit split between the two tables:

• 1a - Artiodactyla except Bovidae (D. Pig, Donkey, Horse, D. Dromedary & Bactrian Camels, Llama, Alpaca; and SD. Reindeer, Fallow & Sika Deer, Moose)
• 1b - Bovidae (Sheep, D. Goat, Cattle, Zebu, Water Buffalo, D. Yak, Bali Cattle, Gayal, Carabao; and Addax, Scimitar Oryx, Common Eland, American Bison, Muskox)
• 1c - Carnivora (Dog, Cat, Ferret, D. Silver Fox; and Egyptian & Indian Gray Mongoose, European & American Mink, Rusty-spotted Cat, Common Kusimanse)
• 1d - Rodentia (Guinea Pig, Fancy Mouse, D./Lab Rat; and Capybara, Indian Palm Squirrel, Long- & Short-tailed Chinchillas, Degu, Mongolian Gerbil, Golden Hamster, Lowland Paca, Steppe Lemming, Pale Gerbil, Persian Jird, Fat-tailed Gerbil)
• 1e - Other Mammals (D. Rabbit, D. Hedgehog; and Asian Elephant, Sugar Glider)
• 2a - Anseriformes (D. Duck, D. Goose; and Mandarin & Muscovy Ducks, Mute Swan)
• 2b - Galliformes (Chicken, D. Guineafowl, D. Turkey; and Indian Peafowl, Japanese Quail, Gray Francolin, Golden Pheasant, King Quail)
• 2c - Columbiformes (D. Pigeon, Ringneck Dove; and Diamond Dove)
• 2d - Passeriformes (D. Canary, Society Finch; and Java Sparrow, Zebra, Gouldian & Star Finches, Eurasian Siskin)
• 2e - Psittaciformes (Rose-ringed Parakeet, White Cockatoo, Budgerigar, Cockatiel, Yellow-collared & Fischer's Lovebirds, Turquoise Parrot, Eclectus Parrot, Salmon-crested & Red-tailed Black Cockatoo, Western, Eastern & Crimson Rosellas) Aside - this category should be shrunk by combining congenerics.
• 2f - Other Birds (Japanese & Great Cormorants, Ostrich, Greater Rhea, Emu)
• 3a - Serpentes (Ball Python, Grey-banded Kingsnake, Cornsnake, Green Tree Python)
• 3b - Lacertilia (Leopard Gecko, Central Bearded & Lawson's Dragons, Green Iguana, Black Spiny-tailed Iguana, Crested Gecko)
• 3c - Other Reptiles (Red-eared Slider)
• 4a - Anura (African Clawed, Green-and-black Poison-dart & Australian Green Tree Frogs, Argentine & Cranwell's Horned Frogs)
• 4b - Other Amphibians (Axolotl)
• 5 - Fish (Goldfish, Siamese Fighting Fish, Koi, Guppy; and Common Carp, Crimson-spotted Rainbowfish, Crucian Carp, Kissing Gourami, Piranha)
• 6a - Hymenoptera (Western & Asiatic Honeybees, Stingless Bee, Indian Honeybee, Buff-tailed Bumblebee)
• 6b - Other Insects (D. Silkmoth; and Cochineal, House Cricket, Common Fruit Fly, Dubia Roach)
• 6c - Other Arthropods (Water Flea, Sea Monkey, Tarantula)
• 7 - Other Animals (European Medicinal Leech, Roman Snail)

Will attempt in 1 week if no objections.

64.178.128.139 (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think using a 2-character code would help much as far as table width, since the *header* would be a lot more than 2 characters wide. If you decide to do this, I'd suggest making the table a bit wider, and sticking it on the end (after the degree of domestication column). I don't quite recall how to make the table wider, but I help curate the vampire traits page, and I asked there, and someone explained (it's on the talk page). If there's a way to make the print small for that column (and that column alone), you might do that, however. Tamtrible (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You also might want to break the fish up a bit. At the very least, separate out the carps from everything else. Koi, goldfish, and all the things labeled carp are in the family Cyprinidae. None of the others are. Tamtrible (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And, we discuss combining similar birds, fish, etc lower down on the page. Join in the discussion there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 09:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree a useful header would be much longer than 2 characters. It would also be more user-friendly to show 1c Carnivora than just 1c and make people hunt for an explanation. I still like the 2-letter code as unlike alphabetical-by-word it allows sorting related groups one after the other.

I would be happy to split off the Cyprinidae. I can also see a use for Cyprinodontifomes (Could there be a longer latin word?): Guppy, Platy, Molly all have exclusively domestic forms.

The table width stays at 100% regardless of what values I change. Shrinking the text size I believe has to be done one cell at a time, I could be wrong. Using the ≤small≥ tag reduces the width by 10%, nesting it the max 3 times only shrinks the column to 72.9%. What about combining the first 2 columns?
Dog (Canis lupus familiaris)
Wild Ancestor:
Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)
3 rows of text fits easily because of the picture column, and 100 of the 136 entries are not domesticated enough that they have warranted a separate page for captive and wild populations. The first two columns are exact duplications for 100 entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.128.139 (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

the directions for making the column wider: add the width to the first line of code like this...

{| class="wikitable sortable" width="1500"

as quoted from where I got the advice on the vampire talk page. I think 1200 or so, maybe just 1100, would be enough width to add the new column without crunching the rest. I don't think I want to combine the first 2 columns. For the first table, it's an important distinction, and people may want to sort by it to find, for example, the various species that have the same wild ancestor... fair point on the code. I think we can leave it at "carps" and "other fish", unless you really want to split off the others. We can shrink longer words using the small tag. Tamtrible (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I went to the vampire page as you suggested and tried that and a couple other things too. In preview it made no difference. Maybe it depends on the browser. It could easily be changed later if someone with a different OS can see and likes the effect of it after I've added the column.64.178.128.139 (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Taxon group column added to both tables. List of groups provided following table 1.64.178.128.139 (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we/when should we combine entries

If there are multiple, not-very-different, not-very-informational entries for multiple species in a single genus, as is the case for, for example, several birds kept as pets in the second table, should we combine the entries, as we did for the various subspecies of bee? The table's already pretty long, so anything we can do to shorten it a bit without losing information should probably be considered... Tamtrible (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

My vote, personally, would be--if 2 or more entries have a similar common name (eg Argentine and Cranwell's horned frogs, Eastern and Crimson rosellas), the same genus, the same location of origin, the same date of domestication, the same degree of domestication, and the same use categories--basically, the only differences are the pictures and the actual species--then 2 or more entries can be combined. They should probably be stated as something like "Argentine and Cranwell's horned frogs (Ceratophrys ornata and C. cranwelli)" if there are 2 or 3, or more like "Horned frogs, various species (genus Ceratophrys)" if there are 4 or more. If there's one "primary" entry and several also-ran species, as might be the case with, for example, the poison dart frogs (I think there are several species kept as pets), you could use the general model of "Name (genus, species), and other members of the genus" or somesuch... Tamtrible (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Congenerics (= same Genus) by Domestication and Original Purpose
I think this is all of them. Suggest to combine or not to combine, based on two criteria.
First List (Fully Domesticated) - for the most part, keep congenerics separate.

• Equuus africanus asinus & ferus caballus - Donkey & Horse.
• Camelus bactrianus & dromedarius - Bactrian & Dromedary Camels.
• Bos frontalis, grunniens, javanicus domestica, primigenius indicus, primigenius taurus - Cattle, Zebu, Bali-cattle, Yak, Gayal. Even though Zebu have recently been merged from a separate species to a subspecies of Cattle, their origins are just as separate as any of the other species.
• Bubalus bubalis carabenesis & bubalis - combine as Water Buffalo, link to both pages. According to the Carabao page, domestication occurred first, and the subspecies was created from domestic animals. The entry should contain the location and date of domestication, not the creation of the subspecies. Otherwise we would have to include all dates and locations of different breeds!

Either List (with separate original purposes) - keep congenerics separate

• Mustela lutreola & putorius - leave as separate Ferret and Mink. Separate purposes, hunting and fur.
• Coturnix chinensis & japonica - King & Japanese Quail. Separate purposes, ornamental and meat/layer.
• Carassius auratus auratus & carassius - leave as separate Carp. Separate purposes, edible carp and ornamental goldfish.
• Cyprinus carpio haematopterus & carpio - leave as separate Carp. Separate purposes, edible carp and ornamental koi.

Second List (Captive-bred) - combine congenerics when they have a similar purpose
Small Mammals

• Herpestes edwardsii & ichneumon - combine Mongooses.
• Chinchilla chinchilla & lanigera - combine Chinchillas.
• Meriones persicus & unguiculatus - combine Meriones Gerbils OR remove persicus. In the absence of info of domestication on the Persian Jird page, there is no backing to include them on this list.

Birds

• Agapornis fischeri & personatus - combine into Lovebirds and add roseicollis.
• Cacatua alba & moluccensis - combine as Cacatua Cockatoos.
• Platycercus elegans, icterotis & eximus - combine as Rosellas.
• Phalacrocorax capillatus & carbo - combine as Cormorants.

Others

• Pogona henrylawsoni & vitticeps - combine as Dragons.
• Ceratophrys cranwall & ornata - combine as Horned Frogs.
• Apis cerana indica, cerana & mellifera - keep one, Western Honeybee, remove cerana indica and cerana. In the absence of info of domestication on the other two species pages, there is no backing to include them on this list.64.178.128.139 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

On the buffalo, I'd keep them separate. They are... different enough from normal water buffalo to have their own page, a distinct origin, and a distinct subspecies. And a different common name. I'd be inclined to leave them for that alone (everyone recognizes that, for example, a collie is a subset of the category "dog", but people may not realize that a carabao is a water buffalo...)

The mongooses were domesticated in different places, and used for different purposes. I vote for leaving 'em separate. The chinchillas are used differently. Again, separate. The gerbil and jird, not sure. Though the page on the jirds does say that they're kept as pets. The cockatoos are from different places, so it seems less-than-optimal to combine them. I'd also leave the dragons separate, bearded dragons are one of the most common reptile pets, and have a different domestication date than the less-commonly-kept Lawson's dragon.

I agree on the lovebirds (though, I'd suggest we say it as "Yellow-collared and Fischer's lovebirds (Agapornis personatus and A. fisheri", if you add a third one, do "A, B, and C lovebirds (genus species, g. species, and g. species)--only use the single common name if there are more than 3.) Likewise the rosellas and cormorants, the locations seem close enough that they can be grouped together. The horned frogs are exactly the same except species and common name. I'd keep, but combine, the two Apis ceranas (the page does say they're used by humans), like we did with the subspecies of A. mellifera, but leave them separate from the latter.

One thing we can do, where we don't combine congenerics, is give them a third letter or number to the 2-letter code. For example, 1c 1 is carnivora: herpestes, on both mongoose entries. Or, however you want to do it. And let's keep with the 10-day rule, you can change this on or after the 29th.Tamtrible (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Jirds, 'kept as pets' is not the same thing as having the remotest degree of domestication. Page title is List of Domesticated Animals. My understanding of domesticated is significant genetic behavioural or morphological differences, semi-domesticated is minor genetic changes such as improved tameability or colour mutations, and each captive-bred undomesticated and wild-caught tameable include a bazillion species, unless you assign some cut-off limit. There are another 2 dozen rodent species which are kept as pets or raised as animal feed. 'Some people keep this species as a pet. They can live to be six or seven years old. They need large cages that allow climbing and leaping.' does not indicate to me that Persian Jirds are prime candidates for the list. The rule is supposed to be no back-up, no entry, isn't it?

There are more than 3 lovebirds and more than 3 rosellas, but those are the species most widespread and most likely to be considered as semi-domestic.

Both listed cockatoo species are from Indonesia, and the date and location of any degree of domestication, if they have one, is very recent and Australia/North America or Europe, not China. Prior to the 1980s most pet parrots were wild-caught. Certain species like budgies, cockatiels and lovebirds breed easily in captivity and have been raised for enough generations to consider them to have a degree of domestication. Not so with cockatoos. C. alba is noted as having been popular pre-1000 AD. These would have been 100% wild-caught birds. Perhaps I am unclear on what 'place' refers to: the species' origin? where they were first kept captive? where wild-caught individuals were once common? where they were first captive bred? where captive breeding became common? where genetic morphological or behavioural changes began to distinguish them from their wild relatives? Whatever the answer, it needs to be consistent.

I agree a third character (where warranted) will help with the ones you want to keep separate.64.178.128.139 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the water buffalo page, there are two types, 'river' with 22 breeds and 'swamp' with 16 breeds, each of which I could see warranting a separate entry due to different number of chromosomes. However, there is no page for river-type water buffalo, there is no page for swamp-type water buffalo, only one page for water buffalo, and 8 pages for some of the breeds. The water buffalo page adequately covers both river and swamp types. The carabao is one breed of swamp buffalo... and according to the List Of Domestic Asian Water Buffalo Breeds page there are more like 135 breeds not just 22+16. Listing separate entries for water buffalo and carabao is similar to listing separate entries for Cattle (on which page you will learn about Beef and Dairy cattle) and Holstein (which is a very popular breed of dairy cattle, but not the only one).64.178.128.139 (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)).

(if you put colons before your post, it will "nest", which makes for better reading flow...) Fair call on the water buffalo, then. I think what we've been using as "location" is "from what wild population were they domesticated"... which, until modern times, was generally the same as "where domestication occurred". For example, horses originated in the Americas, but they were (presumably) first *domesticated* around Mongolia, though they also lived in other places. I'd call the case for the jird... borderline. If no one defends it by the 29th, feel free to nuke it (though you might put an "and others in this genus" note with the Mongolian gerbil). On the birds, adjust the locations if they're wrong (by the above criterion). Then, if there are matches, feel free to combine (on the 29th). If most but not all of the lovebirds and rosellas in captivity are those 2 or 3 species, I'd suggest stating it as "X, Y, Z, and others". On C. alba, if it was kept fairly *extensively* as a pet in ancient China, I'd leave it as is. The second list is kind of "well, it's at least *possible* this counts as domesticated"--for example, elephants have, outside of zoos, never really been bred in captivity. Technically, they're kind of more slaves than domesticated animals. But, we've had this relationship with them for thousands of years, whatever the relationship is.

Did I miss any? Tamtrible (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Combined water buffalo, Meriones gerbils, Lovebirds (added peach-faced), Rosellas, Cormorants, Horned frogs, Apis ceranas.

Left Mongooses, Chinchillas, Cacatua cockatoos, Dragons.64.178.128.139 (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Introduction and Table of Contents

Suggest:
This page is a list of domestic animals, and also includes a list of animals which are or may be undergoing the process of domestication(link=domestication). This includes species which are semi-domesticated, undomesticated but captive-bred(link=captive breeding) on a commercial scale, or commonly wild-caught and tameable(link=tame animal). In order to be considered fully domesticated, most species have undergone significant genetic(link=heredity) behavioural(link=behavior) and/or morphological(link=morphology (biology)) changes from their wild ancestors; while others are little-changed from their wild ancestors despite a hundreds or thousands of years of potential selective breeding(link=selective breeding). There is not always a desire to improve a species from its wild form, and a number of factors determine how quickly any changes may occur. The process of domestication is gradual, and there is no precise moment in history when a particular species can be considered to have become fully domesticated.
To correctly sort the table chronologically(link=chronology) by date of domestication, refresh your browser window, as clicking the Date column heading will mix AD and BC dates.
Contents hide
1 Domestic animals
2 Animals undergoing domestication (or leave as is 'Semidomesticated, routinely captive-bred, or domestication status unclear'?)
3 References
64.178.128.139 (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable addition to me. I'd leave the title of the second part alone. Also, grammar fix, remove the a before hundreds. Also, at the end of the first sentence, I'd add something like "and/or have an extensive relationship with humans beyond simple predation"--I don't think, for example, that elephants are really in the process of becoming domesticated. Also, you know how to do the links, right? Tamtrible (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops on the a! Links I believe are inside double square brackets, if needed follow link word(s) with vertical slash then viewable text. No idea on the contents box, I will copy the format from another page.64.178.128.139 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Added intro and toc. TOC is an automatic feature which occurs when you have at least 4 headers. Since there were only 3 sections (table 1, table 2, references), I added a fourth listing the groups used in the Taxon Group column. Having a TOC makes it clear and simple how many tables there are and how to jump to the second one from the top of page.64.178.128.139 (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)