This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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:
More Rodents:
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.
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.
64.178.128.139 ( talk) 17:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Since Skunks have been kept as pets, should they be added to this page? ChipmunkRaccoon ( talk) 00:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
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?
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)
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?
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)
Dan Koehl ( talk) 18:11, 3 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Should not white tigers and white lions be added to the list? -- Gstree ( talk) 04:33, 19 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)
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 ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Cat#Cat_Evolution_Backdating_.28proposed_change.29 ). Message me if you have questions or concerns. Johnfromtheprarie ( talk) 23:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
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 /info/en/?search=Falconry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4800:681C:C937:E34A:3838:5D5D ( talk) 14:18, 12 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://gd/springerlink3.metapress.com/content/cg01hmdybtb8kmjl/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=4mp2w541s41s4gkiqhs1dq0x&sh=www.springerlink.comWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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:
More Rodents:
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.
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.
64.178.128.139 ( talk) 17:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Since Skunks have been kept as pets, should they be added to this page? ChipmunkRaccoon ( talk) 00:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
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?
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)
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?
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)
Dan Koehl ( talk) 18:11, 3 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Should not white tigers and white lions be added to the list? -- Gstree ( talk) 04:33, 19 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)
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 ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Cat#Cat_Evolution_Backdating_.28proposed_change.29 ). Message me if you have questions or concerns. Johnfromtheprarie ( talk) 23:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
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 /info/en/?search=Falconry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4800:681C:C937:E34A:3838:5D5D ( talk) 14:18, 12 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://gd/springerlink3.metapress.com/content/cg01hmdybtb8kmjl/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=4mp2w541s41s4gkiqhs1dq0x&sh=www.springerlink.comWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)