This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think writers for Wikipedia biology-related articles are entirely too fond of this term. It is a sweeping generalization that should be avoided, imho. The meaning is arbitrary and subjective to the writer; witness this definition page. It seems to mean "we think you can find this (plant or animal) anywhere; that is, we lack geographical distribution data." Nickrz 12:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The Sperm Whale article suggests that it also has cosmopolitan distribution. Should it be listed here as well? -- 212.242.167.26 ( talk) 14:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I also think the Barn Owl should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.153.113 ( talk) 01:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is "Ant" in the list of cosmopolitain species ? "Ant" is not a species, there are thousands of species of ants. Is there any particular ant species found almost everywhere ? Eregli bob ( talk) 04:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I know. Why is it? 78.150.185.30 ( talk) 17:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see an obvious reason as to why cats and dogs aren't listed here. They can survive in almost any climate, as far as I know. Something tells me I'm missing something important, which is why I'm asking instead of just doing this myself. Leo- Roy! review/ gb 02:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
One potentially good addition to this article would be noting where the term came from.-- Rockfang ( talk) 18:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The preamble in the article states “Killer whales (orcas) are among the most well-known cosmopolitan species on the planet” and I wonder if it isn’t Homo sapiens that are. Are people excluded from biogeographic consideration of the term? We’re usually a self-centered species, so why stop here? :) Deuelpm ( talk) 13:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think writers for Wikipedia biology-related articles are entirely too fond of this term. It is a sweeping generalization that should be avoided, imho. The meaning is arbitrary and subjective to the writer; witness this definition page. It seems to mean "we think you can find this (plant or animal) anywhere; that is, we lack geographical distribution data." Nickrz 12:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The Sperm Whale article suggests that it also has cosmopolitan distribution. Should it be listed here as well? -- 212.242.167.26 ( talk) 14:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I also think the Barn Owl should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.153.113 ( talk) 01:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is "Ant" in the list of cosmopolitain species ? "Ant" is not a species, there are thousands of species of ants. Is there any particular ant species found almost everywhere ? Eregli bob ( talk) 04:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I know. Why is it? 78.150.185.30 ( talk) 17:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see an obvious reason as to why cats and dogs aren't listed here. They can survive in almost any climate, as far as I know. Something tells me I'm missing something important, which is why I'm asking instead of just doing this myself. Leo- Roy! review/ gb 02:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
One potentially good addition to this article would be noting where the term came from.-- Rockfang ( talk) 18:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The preamble in the article states “Killer whales (orcas) are among the most well-known cosmopolitan species on the planet” and I wonder if it isn’t Homo sapiens that are. Are people excluded from biogeographic consideration of the term? We’re usually a self-centered species, so why stop here? :) Deuelpm ( talk) 13:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)