Jump to content

Talk:List of domesticated animals/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Missing Animals

Missing four animals listed on the "domestication" page: Syrian Hamster, Madagascar Hissing Cockroach, Red Deer, Skunk. Also missing less common captive-bred hamsters such as Chinese & Dwarf. For parrot/psittacines, recommend listing groups or genera only, otherwise the list would have to be expanded by about 100 additional species that are bred in captivity and have minimal (e.g., colour) changes from wild-type. Same goes for tropical fish and herps. There are also variants of common aquarium fish that are greatly morphologically different from wild-type, e.g., platties, mollies. Missing Mealworms/Darkling Beetles. 64.178.133.181 (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If you think they're valid entries, add them to the bottom table. (you may need to do the "edit source" thing, the new editing doesn't seem to handle large tables properly--you can copy a prior entry, then replace the content, if you're not good at tables). If you think they're candidates for the first table, then go to the bit below where we're discussing the issue (I believe the header is "candidates for first-list status), and make your case, after you add the entry.
I'm inclined to agree about the birds and tropical fish. Just to keep this scientific, I'd do it at the genus level, as well as separating any species that have different broad common names (eg "molly", "danio", "platy").
Herps are, I think, a bit less of an issue, most of the common herps kept as pets are either almost exclusively wild-caught (and thus not even nominally domesticated) or mostly single-species.
How I'd handle it, entry-wise, is to say "common name, genus <genus>, various species"--eg "Molly, genus Poecilia, various species"--guppies are in the same genus, but have a distinct base common name, so get a separate entry. Where there are only 2 or 3 species that have the same common name, as with platys, list them. And, where there are a few related species kept as pets, usually under one common name, but one species constitutes the bulk of the ones kept as pets, you could do it as "Name, <species> and related species"--eg "Uromastyx, Uromastyx (dispar) maliensis and related species" Tamtrible (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What about fish as domesticated food animals: varieties of salmonoids including trout and tilapia meet the definition of domesticated with higher growth rate, reduced sensory perception and poor wild survival. Some bivalves also meet the definition - for mussels back to the Romans, and probably including now oysters but I think not scallops. Lobsters also probably not yet domesticated although is being started. In the pet section, I think carp and goldfish should be linked. Pat Heslop-Harrison 12:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think adding Bettas to the list would be good; Bettas have been captive-bred for several hundred years in Thailand and have been changed significantly in appearance and somewhat in behavior (made more aggressive for fighting) from their wild ancestors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishcatch22 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


This page is missing a huge and important historical segment: the capturing, keeping and hunting with, raptors and others animals. Birds of prey including eagles, hawks and falcons have been used and kept for hunting for thousands of years. In South East Asia, otters have been trained to eat only cooked fish, and then used to catch fish for their masters. Hounds are used to hunt and dogs are used to herd sheep and cattle. Ferrets have been used to drive rabbits from their warrens. Perhaps a category of "Utility animals" could include these, as distinct from beasts of burden.

I disagree... these animals are not domesticated, but rather captive-bred. Check the definition of Domestication. - JRice 15:21, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Several birds of prey should clearly be listed. I disagree strongly with JRice. They are very specially bred and their behavior is significantly changed, frankly much more so than many animals already listed as domesticated already —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.187.15 (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What about "goose" and "duck"?

-and silkworm?

I think all three would probably count. Add them in. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 10:26, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

ferret's aren't domesticated? At all? Perhaps more discretcion should be devoted to animals at the fringe, as I've found ferrets to domesticate as quickly as "domestic" cat breeds. And roughly equal in utility in urban america.--Choz 09:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that while it is Fungi and not Animalia, the page on yeast presents it as one of the earliest domesticated organisms, and the page on mead dates its use back to 7000 BC, China, which is earlier than the page on bread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.175.100.169 (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What about Leopard Geckos?--67.180.213.216 (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

what about turtles, snakes and frogs? there domesticated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.102.72 (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

captive-bred, not domesticated. Nerfer (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed musk-oxen (1960, U.S., meat, milk) - I see no evidence that they're truly domesticated, or even semi-domesticated. If they belong on the list then so does the American Bison, which is widely raised for meat in the U.S. and then there's elk and ostrich, etc. Nerfer (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What about cheetahs? They may not be domesticated now much, but they used to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.176.11 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have any evidence that they were ever *widely* kept as pets/hunting animals/whatever (as in, not just a few rich eccentrics, I think just about every vaguely common animal larger than a mouse has been kept as a pet by *somebody* at least once), then go ahead and add them. But, to the *second* list, please. Tamtrible (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

North African elephants, though extinct, must have been at least partially domesticated since they were used in warfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.19.24 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

At least the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), and perhaps a couple of other small cetacean species, are semidomesticated in part(second list candidates) (routinely captive-bred, behaviorally modified, work closely with humans). They are interesting because they are a modern example of an animal that seems to enjoy its relationship with people - wild dolphins, especially if orphaned or separated from their pod, will very often seek out human company. This could be how the dog got its start (could orphan wolf pups, highly intelligent and social, have hung around the fringes of human society, eventually becoming dogs by mutual consent). Between this behavior of (some) wild dolphins and the success of certain species in research and aquaria, at least the bottlenose dolphin, and possibly the orca (some pods of which had a long-standing relationship with whalers (multigenerational on both sides) where orcas would guide whalers to large whales, receiving payment in whale tongues), and one or two other species are at least as "domestic" as most of the fish and reptiles on this list (apart from the goldfish/carp and a couple others with huge genetic modification). Other than the antiquity of the relationship, aren't dolphins and elephants relatively similar cases of highly intelligent animals that work closely with humans? 192.54.222.19 (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If the Wiki page on those species mentions this behavior, feel free to add them to the second table. If not, edit the wiki page, wait for the edit to stick, *then* feel free to add them to the second table. Tamtrible (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ranched Deer: Four cervids are currently listed, Fallow, Sika, Reindeer and Moose. The reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) and moose (Alces alces) stand out as having multiple purposes, due to social and physical characteristics, respectively. All of the others are raised for meat/hides, shed antlers (art/tools), surgically-removed live antlers (medicinal velvet) and trophies/captive hunt. Deer are generally tameable if bottle-raised, but are often purposefully kept untame/stand-offish to allow the possibility of a hunt, and protect handlers from the antlers they are raised for. The Deer Farm page is not thorough nor representative of worldwide deer farming. Species of widely-kept ranched deer include:

  • Fallow (Dama dama) - already on the list
  • All 4 members of the genus Cervus: Sika (C. nippon), Red (C. elaphus), Wapiti/Elk (C. canadensis) and Thorold's (C. albirostris) although the latter I am not sure is still farmed due to rarity. If combined into a single genus, multiple dates/locations would be needed for the 3 primary species (E. Asia, W. Asia, N. America).
  • At least 2 members of the genus Rusa: Rusa (R. tiorensis) and Indian Sambar (R. unicolor) - farmed primarily in Asia.
  • Both members of the genus Odocoileus: White-tailed (O. virginianus) and Mule (O. hemionus) - farmed primarily in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.128.139 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

More Rodents:

  • Six caviomorphs are currently listed, Guinea Pig, Capybara, Long- & Short-tailed Chinchillas, Lowland Paca and Degu. Two others I know are kept/raised in captivity include Patagonian Mara (Dolichotis patagonum) as pets and Nutria/Coypu (Myocastor coypus) for meat. Inclusion of the Nutria/Coypu may be supported, even though their popularity seems as geographically limited as that of mongooses.
  • Seven plus myomorphs are currently listed, Fancy Mouse, Fancy Rat, Lab Rat; Mongolian Gerbil "and others of the genus", Pallid Gerbil, Fat-tailed Gerbil; Syrian/Golden Hamster and Steppe Lemming. There are a number of others that you can sometimes get as pets in some places, including the Nile Rat (Arvicanthus niloticus), African Giant Pouched Rat (Cricetomys gambianus), Egyptian Spiny Mouse (Acomys cahirinus), Egyptian Gerbil (G. gerbillus), Greater Egypyian Jerboa (Jaculus orientalis) and Hispid Cotton Rat (Sigmodon hispus), but like the Patagonian Mara, their wikipedia pages do not support them being common enough to warrant inclusion on this page. However, I do not believe the Pallid Gerbil (Gerbillus perpallidua) warrants inclusion either, and should perhaps be removed, or if not perhaps have the congeneric Egyptian Gerbil (G. gerbillus) added to its entry. There is an awful lot of info on captive Fat-tailed Gerbil (Pachyuromys duprasi), but the page also notes "Fat-tailed gerbils are very new on the pet market." which to me indicates rarity rather than warranting inclusion on this page.
  • There are two myomorphs I would like to add, Chinese and Dwarf Hamsters. The Chinese Hamster (Cricetulus griseus) is kept as a pet albeit limited by temperament and pest potential, but is also used in the laboratory production of biotech drugs. The Dwarf Hamsters (3 x Phodopus spp.) are widespread enough to be included as a pet genus.
  • Only one sciumorph is listed, the Indian Palm Squirrel (Funamulus palmarum). Inclusion of 2 others is debatable, the Siberian Chipmunk (Eutamias sibericus) which is less popular than formerly, and the Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), which suffered a 5-year ban in the US to due a disease contracted from another rodent species.
  • I do not have a good list to look up of rodents which may be raised more extensively as animal feed, so sorry if I have missed some.64.178.128.139 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Feeder Insects: Crickets are well-known and popular, but some insectivores (or their keepers) prefer grubs, and locusts are listed on the Live Food page as feeder insects as well.

  • Mealworms (Tenebrio molitor) and Superworms (Zophobas morio) are grubs of Darkling Beetles raised as live food. A third species the Red Flour Beetle (Tribolium castaneum) is used in food safety research.
  • Waxworms (Galleria mellonella) and Butterworms (Chilecomadia moorei) are caterpillars of moths raised as live food and bait.
  • Phoenix Worms (Hermetia illucens) are a fly larvae raised as live food that is particularly high in calcium.
  • Inclusion of locusts is not well-supported.64.178.128.139 (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Birds, Birds & more Birds: Cage & Aviary birds are roughly divided into 5 categories: parrots, finches, doves, quail and softbills. If the more commonly kept birds are added, this may mean 300 species, 100 genera, or still quite a few additions if broader groupings are used.

  • For parrots, I wonder if, keeping budgies, cockatiels and lovebirds, it might not be sufficient to add a single entry for Companion parrot - that page does a fairly decent job of listing the different types. If not, group birds into multi-genera categories such as Lories, Cockatoos, Australian Parakeets (which would include the current turquoisine, rosellas and others), Australasian Parrots (mostly just the current eclectus), Psittacula (the current ring-neck and others), African Parrots (grey & poicephalus), Macaws, Conures and Neotropical Parrots).
  • Most of the listed finches are particularly suited to the list (Canary, Zebra, Society, Gouldian, Java): I would remove Star Finches and add the European Goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis) and European Greenfinch (C. chloris). I think it would be nice to have somewhere a list of all the grassfinches, parrotfinches, mannikins, african waxbills, fringillids and american finches that one is likely to encounter, but not here. They are kept, bred and enjoyed as is, 1-2 colour mutations per species notwithstanding.
  • Doves I would leave the 3 species as is. Others are less common, less changed, more difficult, etc.
  • Quail I would add a 3rd species the Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). There are others too but less common.
  • No softbills are on the list. Softbills include a wide variety of fruit-, insect- and nectar-eating birds from tanagers to toucans. Some are kept hand-tame like parrots; many others are usually enjoyed as captive/wild. Two stand out for me as being particularly popular, relatively common and well-known: the Pekin Robin (Leiothrix lutea) and the Indian Hill Mynah (Gracula religiosa).64.178.128.139 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


Ya kinda overfilled my poor brainmeats there, including lots of extraneous detail. Could you give me a short list (preferably with links to their pages) of the species/taxa you wish to add and/or remove? I'd only include taxa that have been captive-bred outside of zoos, not species that are almost exclusively wild-caught. Though, I'd say, fair call on linking to the "companion parrot" page--I'd list it as "Various parrot species", and try to note the frequent/repeated regions of origin. Tamtrible (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. It kinda turned into a book with chapters, lol.

64.178.128.139 (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Elk and red deer both seem like reasonable (second-list) additions, though I'd keep 'em separate from the sika. You can put them together if you think it's warranted, I think they have similar functions and date of quasidomestication.
There's insufficient evidence of domestication on the page for the Javan rusa. Likewise the sambar deer. Likewise for white-tailed and mule deer. If you think they are ranched significantly, then note it on their respective pages, *then* you can add them.
Coypu seem like a reasonable second-list addition.
I agree on making the pale and lesser gerbils a congeneric, and on removing the fat-tailed gerbil. It's not clear whether the fat-tails on the market are captive-bred, or wild-caught, for example... More later, I need to go Do Things. Tamtrible (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Chinese hamster and Phodopus seem fine. I'd leave off the chipmunk and prairie dog, there's insufficient evidence that they were actually bred in captivity, rather than just wild-captured.
Darkling beetles are fine, either as a group, or as individual species, your call. Waxworms yes, butterworms no, it explicitly says they're hard to breed in captivity.
I'd add "companion parrot" mostly to cover any parrots not otherwise covered, but leave the assorted parrots that are already on the page. I think the ones listed probably represent species or taxa that are particularly common pets, or at least presumably so. If you can make a case for any specific one being either very uncommon in captivity, or rarely captive-bred, do so.
I'd leave the star finch, it says on the page that it's a common aviary bird, and no breeding problems are mentioned. Removing the siskin is fine, however.
The goldfinch and bobwhite are fine. The leiothrix seems a tad borderline, but I won't quibble. The myna definitely seems fine. But the "softbill" page doesn't seem to be about any one taxon, while the "parrot" page is about a taxon, if a rather broad one. I'd leave it off. Did I miss any?
And, remember to add these to the second list, not the first. Tamtrible (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes all for the 2nd list. Re. parrots, Turquoisines are slightly more common than congeneric Splendid, and less common than similar-size Bourke's. Turquoisine and Rosellas are less common than Red Rumps and Quakers. Plumheads are as popular as Western Rosellas. The Eclectus is not common and is much rarer than African Greys and the 3 most common Amazons. Salmon-crested Cockatoos are no more common than Whites, Sulfur-crests or Galahs. Red-tailed Blacks are very rare outside Australia. There is also a split between Australia/Europe and the US. In the US, all of the Australian species are rarer and S./C. American species such as Conures, Amazons, Pionus and Parrotlets are more common; in Australia & Europe the Australian parakeets and lories are more common and New World species rarer. Essentially the added parrots seem a bit random.
Re. Star Finches, they are no more common than Owl Finches, Shaft-tails, Diamond Firetails and some others, and less common than Spice Finches, Orange-cheek Waxbills and Cut-throats.
Re. Softbills, no they are not a taxonomical group. They are a useful group that share care requirements and diet. Softbills refers to the variety of birds which are not poultry, doves, quail, parrots or seed-eaters, and they eat a "soft" diet of insects, fruit, nectar or a combination thereof64.178.128.139 (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I've come up with rough numbers, 5,000 farmed Musk Deer (0.1% of 4M worldwide farmed deer), 13,000 Rusa (0.3% of all farmed deer), 9-18,000 White-tails in Canada but no species-specific stats on whether the US white-tail population is another 10k or 100k, without which I cannot make an argument or useful addition to their page and will leave them out, and will only add the Red & Elk.64.178.128.139 (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm generally inclined towards not removing entries that are already there, though I have no problem with turning existing entries into congeneric groupings. It sounds like there might be grounds for removing Eclectus and the red-tailed blacks when we add the "companion parrot" page, however. They are a bit random, they tend to be added by people who know something about the species and/or care about its inclusion. (the main reason I started following this page was edit-wars over leopard geckos, I have one and think they're solidly sliding towards being a true domesticated animal) I'd keep anything that's fairly common as a pet either in the US, or in Europe and Australia. Feel free to add any taxa you feel should be there that aren't, though I think tending towards the congeneric-groupings thing would be a good idea.
Is there a reasonable congeneric grouping for the star finch that covers more common aviary birds?
Since the definition of "softbill" is kind of vague, and not even remotely related to taxonomy, I don't think it adds much to the page.
5,000 animals sounds... kind of small, especially if it's a relatively new thing, and few if any have been captive-bred for more than one or 2 generations. I'd say you're on firmer ground with the Rusa, if you can get a relevant page edit to stick on their page, I'd say go for it. Tamtrible (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the things I hope to have accomplished is to make the list easier to manage. The introduction now indicates solidly sliding towards domestication is good enough, and taxon sorting allows you to compare the top reptile species instead of only thinking leopard geckos vs dogs.
If Rusa goes in, White-tail does too as there are more. Musk is a unique product, I'll look into it more.
Not removing those birds means adding more. There are many relevant genera of parrots and finches. I'll work on that later, but will try to get the other additions and subtractions done in the next few days.64.178.128.139 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Some purposes that may warrant removal

There are some... stretches and redundancies in the "purpose" column, but to avoid an edit war I'll discuss them here before removing them, especially since there are a *lot* of them.

In various entries: "working", usually in addition to several specific forms of work. Is there any case where we actually need to include "working", rather than just the specific work done?

"religion"--in most cases, that seems--unnecessarily vague, and I think it's implied in some cases where the actual animals aren't used in religion often/at all (pigs and dogs, for example...) If it's just talking about animal sacrifice, those tended to be a meat animal, so I don't know that it necessarily warrants a separate "purpose"

various birds have both "meat" and "fat" listed. Unless the fat isn't used as a food source, I think counting their fat as part of their meat seems reasonable. I'd say the same for blood if the blood is only extracted post-mortem, though I'd leave it on cows because some people bleed living cows for food

"weddings" is listed in several cases--aren't most animals' uses in weddings just one of their other uses, such as as draft animals or mounts? The possible exception being pigeons, but I think their use in that case would be best described as something like "display", which would also cover their use in magic tricks and such.

Is "garden bird" really distinct from "pet"?

In several cases where "food" is used, I think what they're trying to say is "animal feed", I'm wondering if we should change all such instances to that.

In specific entries: Are sheep really used for guarding and fighting?

On goats, it mentions "fibre" and "hair". The "hair" seems redundant.

Are zebu really used for fighting and racing?

Are guinea pigs used for racing?

On ducks, I think foie gras falls under "meat" (or possibly fat, but see above)--and is their blood used separately?

Are horses used for fighting?

For silkworms, both "food" and "meat" is redundant, unless the first is supposed to be "animal food"...

On geese, same problem with foie gras

Are yaks used for fighting?

Are *domesticated* b. camels used for hunting, except as mounts?

On guineafowl, what do they mean by "alarming"?

Unless we're eliminating the instances of "religion", the oryx definitely doesn't need "religion" *and* "ceremonies"

Likewise for the elephant.

Capybara, is "skin" really different from "pelt"? Or does that mean "leather"?...

Chinese hamster, is "biotechnology" different from "research"?

Do people actually eat mealworms? If so, for consistency, we might want to list that as "meat" rather than "food".

I'll wait at least a week for comments before deleting the offenders. 68.2.65.161 (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC) (that was me, didn't realize I wasn't logged in) Tamtrible (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the term "working" is that it is operating machinery. However, working (unless a small animal on a treadmill or in a wheel), draft and plowing all involve putting an animal in harness to pull. Transportation could perhaps be split into harness (perhaps called draft), mount and pack. Pack is necessary for small animals like llamas which can carry only small loads. Pack is redundant in all animals also used as a mount.
Religion, weddings, ceremonies... what about "execution" under horses?
"Foie gras" is an organ meat, and therefore falls under meat.
I would remove all the fats, but leave oil for the ratites. Duck fat redirects to duck (food). Emu oil has its own page; ostrich & rhea are similarly valuable.
"Garden bird" and "Landscaping" I would change to "ornamental", separate from "companion", leaving the broader term "pet" for animals which are not so much ornamental nor form a close social bond with humans. Ornamental would cover your white doves at weddings as well.
If the term "fibre" is selected, hair and wool should both be replaced by it. Maybe remove "down" too as it is a subset of feathers?
Guinea fowl are noisy buggers and you and your other poultry/livestock will be warned when you have an intruder, be it human or predator. It would be the equivalent of a watchdog which barks an alarm.
Canaries are listed for mining. They don't actually DO the mining, just quit singing when the air quality gets bad, essentially raising an alarm by their silence.
I counted a while back and there were 13 entries for leather, 7 for hides, 5 for pelts, 4 for fur, 3 for skin and 3 for vellum. All of these refer to either skin with hair on it or skin without hair and should be at most 2 distinct items.
Chinese hamsters are used to produce drugs. Research is learning and discovery, not commercial production.
Go to the Mealworm or Entomophagy page. Believe it! Yes, food should be changed to animal feed and/or meat.
"Ratting" is used once and could be changed to pest control.
Are bloodletting and surgery really different for leeches? Aren't they the same behaviour?
I would leave "racing" and "fighting" unless you research and have reason to believe they are not true. These, as well as "show", fall under a distinct category of sport, which has separate economic significance.64.178.128.139 (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Llamas should be changed from mount to pack.64.178.128.139 (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
How about remove soil fertilization. Everybody poops. Otherwise add it to all poultry and all herbivorous livestock guinea pig and larger.64.178.128.139 (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


I don't know that we necessarily need to be *perfectly* consistent. It just seems like we could remove some redundant entries by, for example, not listing both "fiber" and "hair". For example, I'm comfortable leaving "wool" under the sheep entry... so I'd also leave the hides/pelts/etc alone except where a single entry has more than it needs. And vellum is... a distinctly different product, both in creation and in use, from leather. For example, it's not really cured like leather is, it's just dried.
"Working" is used for: dogs, pigs, goats, cattle, zebu, donkeys, water buffalo, horses, yaks, both camels, llamas, bali cattle, reindeer, elephants, and moose. Do you think it should be left on any of them? I'd leave "mount" and "pack" as is, they really are distinct uses. (and I'd leave "mount" on llama, I think some of them are big enough for at least children to ride)
As far as I know, horses *are* used for executions (or, at least, were)--you tie each limb of someone to a different horse, face them different directions, then hit the horses... Do you agree on removing "religion" and "weddings" for most or all entries? I'll leave "ceremonies" for the oryx, in case they're talking about something specific...
Sounds like we agree on the foie gras and fats, and I was planning on leaving the oil (it's used for things besides food). How about the blood?
Ornamental works for me. And at least one thing listed as a "garden bird" has "ornamental" as a purpose.
The use of canaries in mining is... a distinct thing, and kind of a unique one, I'd leave it as is.
Fair 'nuff on the mealworms, the hamsters, and removing down (I was thinking of it m'self). And if you want to change "ratting", go ahead. (I'm only asking first because I want to change a whole bunch of 'em)
On leeches, the behavior's probably the same, but the *use* may be different.
I don't feel like doing research right now, so I'll leave "racing" and "fighting" as is for the ones where I was dubious.
I'd leave the soil fertilization, for 2 reasons: 1, I think there's significant *commercial* harvest of cow poop, explicitly and specifically (you can go to any big chain hardware store and buy a giant bag of steer manure), and 2. I think sometimes cattle are used to fertilize fields by having them wander around in them pooping <g> (not 100% sure about that, but I *think* so), rather than having humans collect the poop, then spread it around. Tamtrible (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Vellum is like foie gras or veal - raise and processed differently but essentially just a niche within let's say skin if you don't like the term leather for it.
Working - Dogs leave. Pigs change to truffle hunting. Goats change to draft. Donkey leave unless you are switching work/plow/draft to a single term draft or harness. Elephants leave. All others remove.
Pack is currently not used, despite being a unique purpose. Llamas are used for pack considerably. They cannot be broken/trained by an adult-sized person, and cannot carry their maximum load unless properly distributed along the length of their spine. Leading one around with a couple toddlers on their back is "pack" not "mount".
Drawn and quartered by 4 horses, yes. The word execution did not lead me to think of that! I agree on removing religion and weddings. They are occasions not purposes. In most cases they are a subset of meat, draft/mount and pet/ornamental. If not, people need to be more specific. Oryx page "In ancient Egypt scimitar oryx were domesticated and tamed, possibly to be used as offerings for religious ceremonies or as food." Offerings = meat for deities so remove.
This is my take on the column:
  1. the page is a list of animals, NOT an extensive list of all ways in which each animal is used.
  2. the column is purpose not uses, so byproducts can be left out. There are many non-edible byproducts such as manure from live animals, glue, industrial grease and bone from slaughtered ones, but I would leave them all out unless unique to the species or so significantly economically that you can afford to raise them just for that.
  3. consistency of terms allows for easier comparison of species. For example, we can choose to encompass all edible animals and animal parts as either "meat" (eaten by humans or served to deities or carnivores, usually slaughtered) and "animal feed" (eaten by animals, usually served whole and live).
You might be right on racing and fighting being insignificant for some of the species, but not all.
Soil fertilization you would lose on reason #1. I can easily buy bagged sheep and chicken manure, plus horse with slight effort. But you are correct on reason #2 they do stand out among other species as preferred for converting straw & stubble into fertile soil.
If you leave draft/plow/transportation/mount and leather/hide/pelt/etc. I may look at consistifying that after you've done the other parts you want.64.178.128.139 (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I still disagree on vellum. It is a different product both in how it is made (scraped, stretched, and dried, rather than tanned) and how it is used (paper equivalent, rather than fabric equivalent). And there's some valid reason to leave some of the inconsistencies, possibly. "leather" is when the skin is tanned, and the hair is removed. "pelt" is when the skin is tanned, but the fur is left on. "hide" can be either. I'd probably go with that over "skin" if you want to make a single term, but I think it's notable that, for example, cow skin is usually made into leather, while rabbit skin is usually used with the fur on.
Check on the "working". And I agree about adding "pack" where appropriate, though I think it should be added even to animals where "mount" is also appropriate, because they're rather different uses, *if* the animals are used extensively to haul loads. And check on the religion and weddings.
You have a point about the byproducts.
"meat" for "we kill it and eat bits", and "animal feed" for "we give it to animals, often live", sounds good to me. But I'd leave other food products, including "blood" for cattle, because there are people (the Masai, I think, at least) who bleed living cows to get food from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 18:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to comment on blood. I would leave it out in most situations as a byproduct or subset of meat. Where animals are kept as living "blood donors" that's different, as it is then a renewable resource.
A quote from the vellum page: "In Europe, from Roman times, the term vellum was used for the best quality of prepared skin, regardless of the animal from which the hide was obtained, calf, sheep, and goat all being commonly used (other animals, including pig, deer, donkey, horse, or camel have been used). Although the term derives from the French for "calf", except for Muslim or Jewish use, animal vellum can include hide from virtually any other mammal. The best quality, "uterine vellum", was said to be made from the skins of stillborn or unborn animals, although the term was also applied to fine quality skins made from young animals." To me it sounds like it would normally have been obtained unintentionally, trying to make use of a stillborn animal, and would be the leather equivalent on animals eaten tender and young. If you still want to keep it, then add it in for the other species too.64.178.128.139 (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks too rare to be listed as a purpose, but would you like a cuppa Black Ivory coffee alongside your dish of mealworms?64.178.128.139 (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I think animals are or were killed too young to economically use for meat, specifically so that their skin can/could be made into vellum. I'd leave/put it only on the species most commonly used for it, though, which would be (apparently) cows, sheep, and goats. Tamtrible (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
On removing mount as a use for llamas: "...llamas are not riding animals..." Birutta, Gale (1997). Storey's Guide to Raising Llamas. North Adams, MA: Storey Publishing LLC. ISBN 978-1-58017-328-564.178.128.139 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't really agree with removing "religion" as a category. In certain human cultures special animals are major parts of religion and are regarded differently from other creatures. So for instance in the Andes, Guinea pigs are killed by shamans/medicine men so their entrails can be examined in order to predict the future (i.e. Divination). They don't eat the Guinea pig afterwards, it's a religious ceremony. Likewise, those animals which have been sacrificed in various religions, I don't think this should be discounted as merely part of "meat". Even if the animal is eaten by people after being scarified, it's often a specific and unusual case. Many ancient religions would kill the animal and then burn the body completely (i.e. to send it to the gods, or whatever). See Holocaust (sacrifice) and Burnt offering (Judaism). A modern example would be camels in Islam. I can't remember if it's the Eid festival or the Hajj, but at some point Muslims are required to sacrifice an animal, which is usually a sheep, but it is seen as more prestigious to sacrifice a camel. Now these sacrificial animals are eaten, but most of the time people in the middle east don't generally eat camels, it's almost wholly to do with this religious festival (i.e. most of the camels are raised to be killed at this special time). Then obviously you've got cases where animals are considered sacred and even worshipped, like the Temple elephants, who's only job is to be in a temple and be touched by worshippers and to carry priests and idols around during ceremonies. So I think that either the "Religion" category should be put back, or two separate categories be used in it's place such as; "animal sacrifice" (or "ritualistic sacrifice") and "worshipped religiously". --Hibernian (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I'd suggest the latter, more or less. "religion" is just too vague. I'd probably reserve "sacrifice" or "ritual sacrifice" (maybe just "sacrifice" is better, the word implies ritual use) for cases where animals were specifically and specially used for sacrifice (or divination or whatever), not where any animal, or at least any meat animal, would be used more or less interchangeably. And I'd just go with "worship" for the other category. Feel free to add them in as appropriate. Tamtrible (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Domestic List vs. Semi Domestic

I really like the domestic list, it basically seems to have all animal species that have been under human control long enough to considered "domesticated". But the other list is a mess full of tropical species. Snakes, frogs and other things like that are hard to classify as "domestic" because al we do is breed them and keep them in cages. Anyone want to try cutting that its down? NeoStalinist (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

We have had edit wars in the past. We have had *so* many edit wars. The second list is basically a compromise. Everything on that second list is, by at least *some* measure, possibly domesticated. Even if all we do is breed them and keep them as pets, we are at least potentially changing their genes and so forth. I mean, look at all the morphs of leopard geckos. If you want to rearrange the list--possibly grouping the recent species by taxon or something--that would be fine. But please don't try to "cut down" the list, or the edit wars will be back. Tamtrible (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about Skunks

Since Skunks have been kept as pets, should they be added to this page? ChipmunkRaccoon (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Depends. Have they actually been *bred* in captivity (outside of zoos), or are they generally wild-caught skunks? If the former, sure, add 'em. If the latter, no. Tamtrible (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Why was my edit about gerbils reverted?

Gerbils have been, according the their own wikipedia page, bred in the USA since the 1960s and have been kept in other countries such as Japan for even longer.

You never did such an edit, this was your edit, which was reverted Dan Koehl (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, yes, that was my edit. It is of supported accuracy if the gerbil wikipedia page is of any accuracy itself. so why was it reverted?


If it's on the Wiki page for gerbils, I'd say it's valid. Go ahead and change it back. Sometimes people get a bit reactionary, we've had edit wars. Tamtrible (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Rats and Mice

The dates for rats and mice seem quite off. Sources I've seen date rats being selectively bred dates to late 18th c/early 19th. Our page on fancy rats agrees. As for mice, there is a citation on the fancy mouse page, but it is unclear if the reference is actually to domestic mice. The AFMRA article it cites has a clearer date of true documented breeding/domestication as opposed to the 1100 BC date, which merely notes the existence of non-wild type mice. I have updated the mouse date accordingly but will leave the rat date for further review.Ehgarrick (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Red Foxes?

Russian Domesticated Red Foxes seem to be missing from this list, and according to their Wikipedia article. They have been bred in the Soviet Union (now Russia) since 1959 to be domesticated, and started being sold as pets around the late 90's. Would this be a viable edit?

They're right near the bottom of the first list. Tamtrible (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Asian elephant

Im not sure if the Asian elephant really belong here, but the person who submitted the species to the list, is probably unaware of that since the 80s over 300 african elephants have been tamed, trained and bred, as well as worked as riding elephants, in Southern Africa, why this species should be added, if Asian elephants remain. It has also be remembered, that out of Hannibals 37 elephants, 36 were africans, used during the second punic war. His brother Hasdrubal has been said to have over 400 african war elephants in Spain. In those times, its said that most elephant trainers, used for roman and macedonian cavalleries, were Somalian. As elephant trainer since almost 40 years, I would say that african are maybe even easier to tame and train, than Asians, the stories about them, being a myth. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

afaik Asian elephants (which are an entirely different species from African elephants) have been used as working animals in India and the like for *centuries*. Whether or not African elephants are easier to train, have they been in any reasonable sense *domesticated*? That is, have they been captive bred beyond small zoo programs or the like? Have more than a handful of them been taken from the wild and used for human purposes? If so, make your case, then add them to the second list. At a minimum, though, make sure they have, somewhere on their wikipedia page, some mention of the fact that they have been thus used/trained/bred. That's our minimum standard. Tamtrible (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • After working elephants for 40 years, I know about the taxonomy of different species of elephants, and Im burocrat at Wikispecies.
  • African elephants has been tamed and trained almost as long time as the Asian, the punic wars were before the birth of christ
  • Asian elephants has NOT been in any reasonable sense *domesticated*.
  • Asian elephants has NOT been captive bred beyond small zoo programs or the like.
  • I mentioned Hasdrubal having some 400 elephants in Spain, which is more than a handful. During punic wars the cartagians lost almost 1 000 tamed and trained Africans at battles of Sicily and likewise, which make the total estimated number of Africans more than a handful.
  • But my point is that neither of those species belong on this list, and if they do, I guess I can add some 50-100 species which has been tamed and trained since the thousand of years, including parrots, different types of buffaloes and similair. But this doesn't make sense. I think its more important that Wikipedia spread the message, that neither of speies pf elephants were domesticated, regardless how many thousand of years people used to catch and train wil elephants.

Dan Koehl (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editor that neither species belong on the list. Training and taming has nothing to do with domestication. Domestication is about breeding for particular characteristics. We would need to know that elephants (of any species) have been bred for a specific characteristic before they can be added to this list.DrChrissy (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


I agree that our relationship with Asian elephants is... more slavery than domestication. But. The total number of Asian elephants being used for labor is likely solidly in the thousands, possibly even in the hundreds of thousands or more. Compared to that, 400 elephants is a handful. Even 1000 is a fairly small number, there are probably more elephants than that in zoos today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_elephant has an entire section on Asian elephants' interactions with humans, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_elephant basically only mentions poaching, and a brief mention of mating in captivity. I mean, in the article on mahouts, it explicitly says "Elephants, and therefore also mahouts, have long been integral to politics and the economy throughout Southern and Southeastern Asia." They're kind of the weird exception to the "captive breeding" rule, since whatever relationship we've had with them, we've had it for thousands of years.
And we have (due in part to previous edit wars) decided to treat the page for the animal as the definitive source on whether or not it has enough interactions with humans beyond predation to belong on this list. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_domesticated_animals/Archive_1#Suggestion_for_the_belongs.2Fdoesn.27t_belong_issue and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_domesticated_animals/Archive_2#The_rules to get some of the backstory, and the rules we agreed upon. Once you have read those, if you want to add African elephants, please edit the page on African elephants appropriately (to mention their use as war mounts and so forth, even if it's mostly historical), then add them to this page. If you want to do the same for any other species, feel free (just add it to the *second* list, not the first). If you want to add a bunch of species, keep in mind what we decided on for congenerics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_domesticated_animals/Archive_2#Should_we.2Fwhen_should_we_combine_entries ) to keep from unnecessary length if you're adding a lot of related species. Tamtrible (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and if you want to change the "degree and type of domestication" entry for elephants to say something like "enslaved" rather than "semidomesticated", I'd consider that perfectly reasonable, personally. Or "Not domesticated, but captured from the wild and tamed" or whatever. Tamtrible (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I also agree with the above. The elephants have either been bred for desired characteristics or they have not. How can they be "semi-domesticated" - that's like being "slightly pregnant". DrChrissy (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
But... how domesticated is domesticated? If we have, for generations, been feeding animals with desirable characteristics and killing animals with undesirable ones, does that count as "breeding them for desired characteristics", even if we never directly interfere with their mating, or not? Does a single generation of captive breeding make a species domesticated? What about 2? 3? 5? 10? 100? Where do you draw the line and say "at X generations, it's not domesticated, but at x+1 generations, it is"? You can't. Domestication is a *process*. And, while humans can't do it, there are animals that can be "slightly pregnant" for, well, months to years (at least some marsupials, for example, can start an embryo, then basically put it on hold 'till they need it). Anything that is a long process, something can be "slightly" or "somewhat" or "partially" that process. Tamtrible (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I have just gone through the history - thanks Tamtrible for those diffs. One comment in particular stood out for me. "Inclusion [in the list] 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)" DrChrissy (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
There was much back-and-forth and kerfluffle, that led to the 2 lists--the "yes, this is domesticated, no questions about it, experts agree" list, and the "well, some people argue that this might be domesticated to at least some extent" list. Elephants definitely don't belong on the first list, but ... they are something we have been intensively interacting with for a long damned time. So even if we have never intentionally interfered with their breeding, even if we take them from wild parents every single time, the fact that we have been doing so for *so damned long* suggests that, well, we've probably altered their gene pool at least a bit, and at least some of those alterations were probably to our benefit. Tamtrible (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

http://cas.oslo.no/full-width-article/where-does-nature-end-and-culture-begin-article1830-1082.html Dan Koehl (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I once worked on a research project looking at elephants in zoos here in the UK. During that time, a young/adolescent bull was moved to France for breeding. With moves like these, we are no doubt artificially selecting our captive elephants. But, the reasons given at the time to me were that he was surplus to requirements (there was another bull there) and it was becoming too costly to keep him separated from the other male. Are these criteria "domestication". I doubt it. Now if we had selected him because of his calm nature, or large tusks, that would be a different matter. DrChrissy (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I interpret that there is a consensus for removing the Asian elephant from semi domesticated status? Any other opinions? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Western Honey Bees

I moved these up to the domesticated list. They were listed as being domesticated despite being on the bottom table; they have undergone physical and behavioral changes as a result of domestication. It isn't even clear if there are wild Western Honey Bees left; the IUCN redlist notes that it isn't clear that non-domesticated Western Honey Bees even exist anymore, as all "wild" populations may be feral bees. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

And it has the word "domesticated" on the page for the species, so you're good to go. (we're using that as a hard line criterion for moving things to the first list, to cut down on edit wars) Tamtrible (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent dating

This article mixes BC/AD with BCE/CE (not just something like BCE/AD, but it actually has some dates in BC, some in BCE, some in CE, and some in AD). This probably violates the Manual of Style. Hppavilion1 (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to fix it? ... Tamtrible (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Caracals?

One person put them on the list, another person deleted them. It looks, from their page, that they might have some reasonable claim to second-list status, they have apparently been used as hunting animals and occasionally pets. I agree with their removal from the first list, but think they would appropriately belong on the second list. Thoughts? Tamtrible (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose by the rather loose criteria of the second list, the caracal might qualify there. It does however appear to me that entries in that list are frequently rather doubtful, and could do with some winnowing. I have just removed rusty-spotted cat, for the inclusion of which I can find no justification.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Just... be generous, OK? If the page for the animal mentions that it is at all commonly kept as a pet, or on ranches, or the like, leave it? I don't want the edit wars back. And the second list is supposed to be "there's at least some reason to believe some members of this species might possibly be domesticated" rather than "this is domesticated". Tamtrible (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Master list

I am wondering if the section from the article on Domestication called “Categories of domesticated organisms” should be moved into a separate master list that would be merged with the “List of domesticated animals,” the “List of domesticated plants” and the list of “Domesticated outsider taxa.” There are so many organisms with complete lifecycles under the care and direction of humans that the list in this article is starting to look like a full taxonomical chart of all living things. It is an interesting and valuable list, but I think that it should all be consolidated into one list that is organized into the three main categories of animals, plants, and outsider taxa. I also think that there should be some standardized way of specifying the degree of domestication for a species or a simple explanation of why it should be included on the list. The article on domestication should contain a clear link to this master list, but I think that the article and the master list should be separate projects. What do others think? --[[User:Jjhake|Jjhake (talk)]] 21:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know this is a very late response, but... I'd say no. This list is long enough with just animals on it. Though if those lists aren't linked at the bottom, they should be. Tamtrible (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Gerbils

When is the date for gerbils going to be corrected? It's totally wrong. My books all say 1960s or earlier and I have books actually written in the 1960s on pet gerbil care and also Japan had them decades earlier as research animals! Also Ags and Ngs and Egerbil as sources! Plus your Wikipedia articles on gerbils all say way earlier than 1990s. Contradicting yourselves! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.36 (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have better data, feel free to correct it. Tamtrible (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Eland--congeneric merge?

Whoever added the giant eland, can it be merged as a congeneric with the other listed eland? Tamtrible (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

White tigers/lions

Should not white tigers and white lions be added to the list? --Gstree (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say no. Use in a few--a very few--magic shows and circuses and the like is not really anything even remotely like domestication. And are they bred in captivity outside of zoos, or are most of them captured from the wild? Tamtrible (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Definitely no. I'm guessing we have a list somewhere of notably tamed animals. And it's going to be a really long list. IDK about the specifics of White Tigers/Lions vs regular. I get that we selected for their breeding, but don't they also happen in nature sometimes just like white whales and other albinos? In any event, they are certainly not domesticated. A good rule of thumb is "on a farm = domesticated" and "in the circus = tamed" Johnfromtheprarie (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Our own article indicates Domestication is a process whereby humans artificially select organisms for desired characteristics. Certainly, white tigers have been selected for their "whiteness" for zoos and circuses and therefore they are domesticated, even though they might not have been tamed. DrChrissy (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Domesticated (House) Cat Citations and Proposal to Change Date Significantly.

I'm planning to change the cat domestication date here, and more importantly, on the main Cats page. I'm leaving a papertrail just b/c, you know, internet + catz lol. Check my similar (but greatly expanded and full of citations) message on the talk page for Cats ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cat#Cat_Evolution_Backdating_.28proposed_change.29 ). Message me if you have questions or concerns. Johnfromtheprarie (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Falcons and other birds used in falconry like sports

I am not an expert on the subject (nor on editing wikipedia pages), but I suspect that most birds in falconry would fit in these lists. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falconry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4800:681C:C937:E34A:3838:5D5D (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

But, are they actually *bred* in captivity, or are most/all of them wild-caught? Tamtrible (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of domesticated animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Budgerigars should be in domesticated, not semi-domesticated

Hello, my first time writing anything, so hope I'm going about this right.

I'm trying to figure out why canaries & finches are in domestication but Budgerigars not. Budgerigars would seem to be MUCH more domesticated than the majority of the domesticated entries (birds & otherwise).

A quote from the Budgerigars wiki page "The budgerigar has been bred in captivity since the 1850s. Breeders have worked to produce a variety of colour, pattern and feather mutations, including albino, blue, cinnamon-ino (lacewinged), clearwinged, crested, dark, greywinged, opaline, pieds, spangled, dilute (suffused) and violet. "English budgeriegars" more correctly called "show" or "exhibition budgerigars" are about twice as large as their wild counterparts, and with a larger size and puffier head feathers have a boldly exaggerated look."

It also goes on to discuss how they can be taught to talk. I don't understand how all of this doesn't translate to domestication. I used to do wildlife rescue work in Australia, if we had "escaped pets" (usually deliberately dumped) Cockatoos, Lorikeets etc, they could very easily be rehabilitated for wild release, so I understand them not being categorised as "domesticated" given the lack of changes they've experienced, but there's NO WAY a show budgerigar could survive in the wild! The larger sized birds and non-camouflage colour versions are no longer capable of survival in the wild. They are completely dependent on humans for their survival. What's stopping them being catagorised as "domesticated"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.184.145 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

We have had So Many Edit Wars (though splitting the list into 2 categories helped a lot). One point of contention was where to draw the line for true domestication vs merely probable domestication. One of the criteria we decided on was that either the domesticated version had to be listed as a different species from the wild version, or the word "domesticated" or some variation had to be on the animal's page somewhere, obviously referencing the animal. Eg the page for "fancy rat" actually starts with "The fancy rat is a domesticated rat". Most of the other rodents listed (with the exception of Syrian hamsters) do not specifically say that they are domesticated.
Change the budgie page so that it explicitly states, somewhere, that budgies are domesticated, and get the edit to stick, and you can feel free to bump them up to the first list. Someone might want to do the same for golden hamsters, as their page already discusses their domestication. Tamtrible (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of domesticated animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_domesticated_animals/Archive_3&oldid=823727405"