Talk:List of domesticated animals

I propose the Gayal be removed from the list, but I would prefer someone with more experience do it. The wikipedia description for Gayal only lists it as "semi-domesticated," which should not be on this list. It is unsourced, even in that claim, and unsourced for date of domestication. This is a list of animals we have concrete domestication archaeological records on, and I guess modern well sourced exemplars. The Gayal fits neither description, best I can tell.Johnfromtheprarie (talk)

The "tame and partially domesticated animals" section is still rife with uncited entries and entries that cite isolated instances (e.g., the nilgai row's citation is a single person temporarily using a single nilgai as a work animal). Simply being kept or bred in captivity does not semi-domestication make. I propose removing every entry that lacks a citation of widespread human use or captive breeding that has led to some significant or widespread physical or behavioral change (e.g., non-wild-type color morphs and widespread tame behavior in budgerigars and cockatiels) or human dependency. Many animals on that list, contrary to the preceding paragraph, are not altered to any notable degree from wild-type animals and easily could be released into the wild (including the cited nilgai individual, which literally was released to the wild).

Part of the issue, I feel, is how the article's introductory paragraph welcomes "undomesticated but captive-bred on a commercial scale, or commonly wild-caught, at least occasionally captive-bred, and tameable". In what sense do either of those descriptions necessarily make an animal semi-domesticated? In what way has, say, the European eel undergone any bit of the domestication process? Disambiguation, or perhaps a separate article ("List of animals widely kept in captivity" or something), would help produce a more manageable list. Shuvuuia (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please join my efforts. I am being a little more cautious than that (I am kind of erring on the side of keeping an animal if there is, at least, evidence of widespread captive breeding, ranching, or other human use), and I'm checking the source page for an animal rather than just going with what's listed here, but I would welcome help.

Please, as I have done, post a list of what you want to remove, and give people 2 weeks or so to object, we have had *so* many edit wars on this page, so I don't want anyone just removing a giant chunk of entries without warning.

Maybe you can start from the bottom, so we don't duplicate effort too much, or you could just start from where I left off (currently grey rat snakes). In fact, I think the current "ripe" set hasn't been removed (starting from palm cockatoos). I've been busy with other things lately, and haven't kept up with this page. Tamtrible (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Certainly. I note many potentially questionable entries that should be at least discussed:

• Eels: Every eel farm in existence raises wild-caught larvae. Several of the cited references clarify that we have yet to figure out how to breed them in captivity. Being bred in captivity feels like it'd be a base requirement for any definition of "semidomestication".
• Chinese spiny frog: Its article notes that farming operations are "likely" based on wild-caught tadpoles, similar to eels
• Mopane moth: As well, the citation describes a process involving raising wild-caught eggs; no indication of captive breeding
• Nilgai, ruddy mongoose, Javan mongoose, fishing cat: The provided citations describe isolated instances, and no further human use is mentioned in their articles
• Sika deer: The provided citation describes an essentially wild population in Japan
• Black-legged seriema: Use as a guard animal isn't mentioned on the black-legged seriema's article, and the cited reference for this on the red-legged seriema's article is a dead link. Reference can easily be found online for use of red-leggeds as guard birds, but not black-leggeds. Remove unless a citation can be provided
• Flathead grey mullet: The provided citation, which is also used for the corresponding section on its article, does not mention aquaculture at all
• Giant Pacific octopus: The provided citation doesn't specify which octopus species is being farmed in that instance. Further human use is not mentioned in its article
• Greater grison: Use as a pest control animal is not mentioned in its article as with the lesser grison, and no citation is provided
• Coatis: Neither the provided citation nor their articles suggest that coatis are bred in captivity for the pet industry
• Celebes warty pig, chital, Tian Shan wapiti, water deer, Bubal hartebeest, bat-eared fox, yellow-throated marten, large bamboo rat, lesser bamboo rat, Parma wallaby, black francolin, mountain bamboo partridge, rain quail, stubble quail, kalij pheasant, Swinhoe's pheasant, Salvadori's pheasant, Edward's pheasant, Siamese fireback, Montezuma quail, mountain quail, scaled quail, elegant quail, Gambel's quail, California quail, plum-headed finch, northern spiny-tailed iguana, tiger salamander, wood frog, northern leopard frog, yellow snapper, New Zealand green-lipped mussel: No citations provided, and captive human use are not mentioned in any of their articles
• Caracal, steppe lemming: No citation, and the corresponding section in their articles are tagged WP:CITENEED
• Japanese horseshoe crab: No citation, not mentioned in its article. While we're at it, experiments in captive breeding have been attempted for the Atlantic horseshoe crab, but have yet to take off on a wide scale
• Purple dye murex: No citation, captive breeding not mentioned in its article (and I can't find reference to it being anything other than harvested from the wild)
• Genets, raccoons, common kusimanse, Egyptian mongoose, rusty-spotted cat, cacomistle, Arctic fox, swift fox, kit fox, corsac fox: No citations provided for any of these being kept as pest control; this isn't mentioned on their articles either. Genets, raccoons, and the kusimanse are described as occasionally being kept as exotic pets. That, IMO, should not qualify by itself to make the list, especially if there's no evidence that they are widely captive bred for this purpose.
• Southern tamandua: The provided citation does not mention human use, and the corresponding section in its article is tagged WP:CITENEED
• Northern tamandua: The provided citation does not mention human use, and neither does its article

Some further suggestions for page cleanliness:

• That companion parrots are listed as a singular unit raises the question of how necessary rows for individual parrot species are, as all of them are pretty much only kept as companion birds
• Rankin's dragon: Redundant with "Central bearded dragon and related species"
• Similarly, Cacatua, Cuora, Taurotragus, Struthio, Lampropeltis, Oncorhynchus, and Lithobates could afford to be combined into one row each. None of them have any significant difference in use or degree of domestication within the genus. Listing northern green frogs separately from American bullfrogs only serves to make the page load more slowly.
• Guanaco, vicuña, red fox: These are already mentioned as the wild ancestors of llamas, alpacas, and domesticated silver foxes respectively. Do the wild forms necessarily need to be listed again?
• Poison dart frogs: Numerous species are kept as pets, including many more than the two that are arbitrarily listed. Perhaps change to Dendrobatidae spp. and leave it at that?

The "degree and type of domestication" column is also a bit of a mess. As described, several animals are unjustifiably listed as being "Captive-bred". Hamsters, kissing gourami, and various carp species are labeled "Domesticated" - if so, why aren't they in the previous table? Why are ratites, piranha, and stingless bees singled out as "Semi-domesticated"? That label adds no useful information, as it is unclear what "semi-domestication" even means in this context, and I suggest it be removed.

To be quite honest, this list feels like it's muddying what "partial domestication" means. I think that most people would agree it'd be inappropriate to list animals like rhinos and tigers on this list - but then why should alligators and crocodiles be listed? Crocodiles and tigers are both commercially farmed for their parts, widely kept as pets, and captive bred for these purposes, and arguably tigers are "domesticated" to a greater degree than crocodilians due to the appearance of, and selective breeding for, non-wild-type phenotypes (white and golden tigers). I reiterate my endorsement for a redefinition of what should qualify for this article

Shuvuuia (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why don't we just delete everything that is not strictly domesticated (but is rather a wild animal that can be tamed)? Then we can add a section in the lede describing how there are many animals that may be tame and kept in captivity, but that doesn't meet the definition of domesticated. Steven Walling • talk 01:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because "domesticated" is... fuzzy. After many, many, many edit wars, we came to the conclusion that we'd split the page into "This is definitely domesticated" and "This might be somewhere on the path to domestication", and the criteria for the latter are some indication (either on their page or in citations quoted here) of 1. relatively widespread human use in some capacity (eg not just one or two idiots keeping one as a pet), and 2. either captive breeding outside of zoos/reintroduction programs, or meeting the Elephant Exception (such a long history of human use beyond simple predation that... we've probably done *something* to affect their breeding, if only by accident).

I'm kind of one of the curators of this page, and I... really don't want the edit wars back, please. Tamtrible (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, consensus can change, but I certainly also don't want to blow up an old fight either. What do you think about paring down some of the uncited examples in the "tamed" section? Steven Walling • talk 05:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The process I've decided on, mostly to avoid edit wars (I have no idea how many times I had to put leopard geckos back on the list), is propose your deletions here, give people at least 2 weeks or so to object, then go ahead and nuke anything that hasn't been objected to. I think I have some that were "ripe" back in March or something that never got deleted, though I need to rescue them from archiving again.

And that's only for mass deletions. If there's a single entry that's obviously absurd (though please at least quickly check the page for the animal to make sure it's not just "obviously absurd" because you've never heard about it), go ahead and just nuke it, I just don't want anyone to have 23 entries they've poured their heart and soul into vanish without warning, ya know? Tamtrible (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comments: I am in the process of digesting the information in this article. I just came to this page and saw the above information by Shuvuuia and Steven Walling of which I have only glanced at. I have concerns about the presentation the page currently presents (the layout needs a lot of work) as well as many entries. There is a huge difference in a wild animal, someone might call a pet thus referred to as domesticated, animals that might be in capture but will never be domesticated, and some wild animals that certain people can acquire, that requires much training and special accommodations (cages) specific to that animal, to include special licenses. In other words, a person cannot run to the pet store and buy one, or even some speciality shop. In Florida: Class I wildlife is a defined list of species that are considered to present a real or potential threat to human safety. Possession of Class I wildlife requires a permit. Due to the nature and habits of Class I species, Class I wildlife may not be possessed as a personal pet. This includes Felidae, Cheetahs (Acinonyx jabatus), Crocodylia (captive bred crocodiles, alligators, caimans, and gharials), including Black caimans (Melanosuchus niger), Cercopithecidae (Old world monkeys), Baboons (genus Papaio), Hominidae (Great apes), Chimpanzees (genus Pan), Ursidae (Bears), Rhinocerotidae (Rhinoceros), Elephantidae (Elephants), and Hippopotamidae (Hippopotamuses). This is just one state. Louisiana law 5-76 of its Code states that "it shall be unlawful to own, keep, possess, maintain, or harbor any exotic/wild animal." If special permits are required then I think the sourcing, referenced or in a note, needs to be present.

Applicants for Class II wildlife must submit 1000 hours of experience in the care, feeding, handling and husbandry with the taxonomical family being applied for. This indicates that the listing of an American alligator as a pet is erroneous. There are many on the list that is dubious, many without references that should be deleted.

In fact, the only real solution is some mass deletions, per Walling, which would include those with no sourcing or at least links to the article that does mention that the entry is domesticated. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Whatever our relationship with elephants is, it's literally millenia old. Similarly, animals like cheetahs have been used by humans for centuries. Presence on this article does not mean that an animal is safe to have around, nor is it any kind of endorsement of keeping one as a pet, it's just a record of "Yeah, humans have kept this critter around intentionally, for yeah long, for these purposes."

Feel 100% free to slap a "citation needed" on any claims you consider dubious. Or delete them, if you go to the source page for the animal and see absolutely no mention (even indirectly) of that kind of use. But if you want to do a big change (like deleting a bunch of purposes from a bunch of entries), please propose it on the talk page, and give people a chance to object.

And please don't be like the people who kept removing "meat" as a purpose from things (like dogs and horses) that most Westerners (or at least most Americans) don't think of as food. Tamtrible (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to quote you, and reply in bits, because you said a lot.

Certainly. I note many potentially questionable entries that should be at least discussed:

• Eels: Every eel farm in existence raises wild-caught larvae. Several of the cited references clarify that we have yet to figure out how to breed them in captivity. Being bred in captivity feels like it'd be a base requirement for any definition of "semidomestication".

Sounds like there are, at least, serious efforts to breed European eels and short-finned eels in captivity, that have met with some success. I might leave those. The rest can definitely go.

• Chinese spiny frog: Its article notes that farming operations are "likely" based on wild-caught tadpoles, similar to eels

agreed.

• Mopane moth: As well, the citation describes a process involving raising wild-caught eggs; no indication of captive breeding

agreed.

• Nilgai, ruddy mongoose, Javan mongoose, fishing cat: The provided citations describe isolated instances, and no further human use is mentioned in their articles

Nilgai: weak evidence of prior semidomestication, so I'd give it a second look. The rest I agree with.

• Sika deer: The provided citation describes an essentially wild population in Japan

But there are a couple of mentions of farming or other human use on their page. Read "introduced populations" and "velvet antlers".

• Black-legged seriema: Use as a guard animal isn't mentioned on the black-legged seriema's article, and the cited reference for this on the red-legged seriema's article is a dead link. Reference can easily be found online for use of red-leggeds as guard birds, but not black-leggeds. Remove unless a citation can be provided

agreed.

• Flathead grey mullet: The provided citation, which is also used for the corresponding section on its article, does not mention aquaculture at all

I'd give this one a second look, the page does mention aquaculture, but it may be just raising wild eggs/babies.

• Giant Pacific octopus: The provided citation doesn't specify which octopus species is being farmed in that instance. Further human use is not mentioned in its article

agreed.

• Greater grison: Use as a pest control animal is not mentioned in its article as with the lesser grison, and no citation is provided

agreed.

• Coatis: Neither the provided citation nor their articles suggest that coatis are bred in captivity for the pet industry

agreed.

• Celebes warty pig, chital, Tian Shan wapiti, water deer, Bubal hartebeest, bat-eared fox, yellow-throated marten, large bamboo rat, lesser bamboo rat, Parma wallaby, black francolin, mountain bamboo partridge, rain quail, stubble quail, kalij pheasant, Swinhoe's pheasant, Salvadori's pheasant, Edward's pheasant, Siamese fireback, Montezuma quail, mountain quail, scaled quail, elegant quail, Gambel's quail, California quail, plum-headed finch, northern spiny-tailed iguana, tiger salamander, wood frog, northern leopard frog, yellow snapper, New Zealand green-lipped mussel: No citations provided, and captive human use are not mentioned in any of their articles

That's a lot, I'll just mention the ones I have possible issue with.

Warty pig: it mentions domestication, though there is "citation needed". Presumably bred for meat, just like other pigs. I'd leave it for now.

Wapiti: farms are mentioned, I'd at least dig a little before nuking.

Bubal hartebeest: weak evidence of ancient domestication, no strong opinion.

bat-eared fox: mention of "commercial use", I'd probably leave it unless you're willing to poke and see if it's captive-bred or not. Maybe flag it as "citation needed", and see if someone can provide one.

black francolin: there's mention of aviculture, including breeding.

I know there are at least some quail raised for meat and eggs, though I'm not sure which. Montezuma's quail's page specifically mentions captive breeding, and you might do a quick check elsewhere to see what quail species are most commonly raised for eggs.

I think you meant Northeastern, I agree that it and the Mexican spiny-tailed ig should both go. Leave the black, though.

I'm *kind* of inclined to leave the tiger salamanders. I think they're one of the more common pet salamanders, and while it explicitly says there's no *large-scale* breeding going on, I think there's a fair amount of smaller-scale breeding. I'd at least... leave them on the first pass, maybe with a "citation needed".

Northern leopard frogs are used for research, I'd leave 'em.

green-lipped mussel: there is mention of captive breeding (hatcheries), as well as extensive aquaculture (for meat) from mostly wild-sourced eggs. I'd leave it.

The rest are fine.

• Caracal, steppe lemming: No citation, and the corresponding section in their articles are tagged WP:CITENEED

Still, I'd leave 'em for now. There are enough more clear-cut ones to remove. Maybe stick a "citation needed" on this page, too.

• Japanese horseshoe crab: No citation, not mentioned in its article. While we're at it, experiments in captive breeding have been attempted for the Atlantic horseshoe crab, but have yet to take off on a wide scale

Agreed. Unless someone can find a citation of successful captive breeding, nuke 'em.

• Purple dye murex: No citation, captive breeding not mentioned in its article (and I can't find reference to it being anything other than harvested from the wild)

There's weak mention of past captive breeding (the bit about ancient Minoans). I'm inclined to leave it, but I wouldn't cry if it was removed.

• Genets, raccoons, common kusimanse, Egyptian mongoose, rusty-spotted cat, cacomistle, Arctic fox, swift fox, kit fox, corsac fox: No citations provided for any of these being kept as pest control; this isn't mentioned on their articles either. Genets, raccoons, and the kusimanse are described as occasionally being kept as exotic pets. That, IMO, should not qualify by itself to make the list, especially if there's no evidence that they are widely captive bred for this purpose.

Another long one.

genets: I know we're not supposed to use original research here, but I happen to know that they were one of the critters used as pest control on ships (like ship's cats, but, y'know, not.) I'd at least leave them during the first pass.

raccoons: there's enough evidence that they're kept as pets semi-frequently, they were farmed for fur for a while, and so forth that I'd leave 'em.

kusimanse: the page specifically mentions captive breeding, and their use in the exotic pet trade. We don't want to keep *every* possible exotic pet, but at least where there's known multi-generational captive breeding (ie captive bred animals with captive bred parents), I'd leave 'em. Again, there's enough total nonsense to remove, we can scrutinize things like this a little harder on the second pass. Maybe slap a "citation needed" on it.

Egyptian mongoose: some hints of captive breeding type use, at least leave it for the first pass.

again, if I didn't mention it, it's probably fine to nuke.

• Southern tamandua: The provided citation does not mention human use, and the corresponding section in its article is tagged WP:CITENEED
• Northern tamandua: The provided citation does not mention human use, and neither does its article

Some further suggestions for page cleanliness:

• That companion parrots are listed as a singular unit raises the question of how necessary rows for individual parrot species are, as all of them are pretty much only kept as companion birds

It's why I'm being a bit harsher on any parrot entries, but there is a significant difference between, say, a budgie vs a crested cockatoo. It's not like the assorted congenerics, parrots are a higher-order clade. I'm fine with winnowing down the individually listed parrots a good bit, especially if you can get a parrot expert to help, but I'd at least leave a. the most common ones, and b. at least one example each from each major type...

• Rankin's dragon: Redundant with "Central bearded dragon and related species"

They have a different domestication date, though I might slap that one with a "citation needed" to see if it actually is a Thing.

• Similarly, Cacatua, Cuora, Taurotragus, Struthio, Lampropeltis, Oncorhynchus, and Lithobates could afford to be combined into one row each. None of them have any significant difference in use or degree of domestication within the genus. Listing northern green frogs separately from American bullfrogs only serves to make the page load more slowly.

In general, feel absolutely 100% free to group congenerics without significant differences in use, domestication date, and so on, as long as you're keeping all of the individual species. Please propose here, as with deletions, if you want to reduce a clade to "and related species", preferably based on at least *some* indication that the ones you're leaving out are less commonly used/kept/bred/whatever.

• Guanaco, vicuña, red fox: These are already mentioned as the wild ancestors of llamas, alpacas, and domesticated silver foxes respectively. Do the wild forms necessarily need to be listed again?

I'd say no. Same with chickens, probably.

• Poison dart frogs: Numerous species are kept as pets, including many more than the two that are arbitrarily listed. Perhaps change to Dendrobatidae spp. and leave it at that?

I think I may have done some kind of check on that, and the listed ones are actually bred in captivity. But I'd have no real issue with turning the entry into a spp. instead of a specific one.

The "degree and type of domestication" column is also a bit of a mess. As described, several animals are unjustifiably listed as being "Captive-bred". Hamsters, kissing gourami, and various carp species are labeled "Domesticated" - if so, why aren't they in the previous table? Why are ratites, piranha, and stingless bees singled out as "Semi-domesticated"? That label adds no useful information, as it is unclear what "semi-domestication" even means in this context, and I suggest it be removed.

I'd prefer not to remove it, but I agree that it needs to be *majorly* cleaned up. It's primarily there to indicate things like what changes have been made to the organism. Maybe it needs a rename, to clarify the purpose. Basically, the "proper" use of the column is for things like what you see on the Java sparrow, the Siamese fighting fish, and so on. I'd be 100% OK with someone going through and deleting all of the "captive bred", "semidomesticated", and so on, just leaving the things like "largely unchanged from wild-type", "X, Y, and Z changes", and other actual specific, meaningful things.

To be quite honest, this list feels like it's muddying what "partial domestication" means. I think that most people would agree it'd be inappropriate to list animals like rhinos and tigers on this list - but then why should alligators and crocodiles be listed? Crocodiles and tigers are both commercially farmed for their parts, widely kept as pets, and captive bred for these purposes, and arguably tigers are "domesticated" to a greater degree than crocodilians due to the appearance of, and selective breeding for, non-wild-type phenotypes (white and golden tigers). I reiterate my endorsement for a redefinition of what should qualify for this article

The thing is... maybe tigers *should* be listed, if we're captive-breeding them semi-extensively outside of zoos. The point of this isn't to match people's ideas of what's "actually" domesticated (or at least potentially somewhere along the path to domestication), it's to list what has *actually* been farmed, ranched, kept as a pet, or otherwise used, as well as captive bred enough that we have at least potentially altered its genotype for our own purposes. Tamtrible (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Looks like I skipped the tamanudas. They both look fine to delete, to me.

Consider all of the above (barring the ones I objected to) "ripe" on September 9 or so. Tamtrible (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

All fair objections, and I agree a less stringent initial round of nuking is appropriate.

• Sika deer: Agree to retain, but remove the weak citation
• Flathead gray mullet: I found a paper on aquaculture for this species, so retain.
• Tian Shan wapiti: Ultimately I would replace this one with elk (Cervus canadensis) in general. North American elk subspecies are not uncommonly ranched in the United States and Canada for meat and hunting, and there exist citeable publications for this (plus, anecdotally, I live in a part of the United States where elk ranches exist).
• Bat-eared fox: The citation for "commercial use" on its article does not describe them being intentionally kept as pest control. It only contains, and I quote: "Bat-eared foxes are an efficient and important predator on harvester termites, which are considered a serious pest of rangeland". With no reason to think they've been kept in captivity, remove.
• Egyptian mongoose: The citations provided where its article discusses captive individuals seem to pertain exclusively to zoo populations. Remove.
• Rankin's dragon: The Pogona page states: "The central bearded dragon is the most common species in captivity, as well as one of the most popular pet reptiles, with some smaller species such as Pogona henrylawsoni being used as substitutes where less housing space is available.". So the Rankin's dragon, being the second most commonly kept species of Pogona, is the "related species" being referred to. The two entries should be combined anyways since they're congeneric; the difference in domestication date isn't particularly well-attested for either, and some "genus" entries have dates like "the late 20th century", so I see no reason why not to combine them into a single "bearded dragon" row.
• For animals with weak evidence of historical domestication (nilgai, Celebes warty pig, Bubal hartebeest), disclaimers should be added to their entries. Saying that these animals may have been historically domesticated is very different from saying that they were/are.
• I wasn't suggesting to remove the "Degree and type of domestication" column altogether, apologies if it came across that way. I was suggesting to delete the labels "domesticated" and "semi-domesticated" because they add no useful information. We're on the same page here.

If the point of this list is indeed to list species that have been widely farmed or captive bred, then I think the article text should be tweaked to better reflect this. Contrary to what the preceding paragraph implies, many animals in this table are not noticeably altered physically from the wild-type, nor behaviorally beyond sometimes taming (which doesn't even completely take off in some captive populations), and many of them could be released into the wild with little issue. While some of these animals (e.g., reindeer, ball pythons) are showing changes consistent with the domestication process, others (e.g., crocodiles, many of the fish) do not, and as thus the existing implications are potentially misleading. For example, the "Degree and type of domestication" column could be renamed to "Degree of change from wild population". Shuvuuia (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Everything you said seems reasonable.

How about "Changes from wild population/notes"? It's always useful to have a column where you can say "and here's this other relevant thing". It's where we can put "disputed historical domestication" for things like the warty pig, the murex, and so on. Tamtrible (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I like that. The more relevant info, the better. Shuvuuia (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Tamtrible, so you will know, I have been on Wikipedia for a good while and do not edit war. If I hit a "snag" I am able to navigate through it. There are four of us looking at this and you are active on the article. I will likely not do a lot of editing, at least for a while, just working with those that are active and willing to collaborate. I am very versatile at navigating without battles. As I said, I just arrived here and still looking things over. As long as there is collaboration I will be appeased.

There does need to be an understanding that this is an attempt to list animals world-wide (an international view) and this must be considered as far as the listings. However, this is an English (en) version of Wikipedia and this has to be taken into consideration. There are many animal rights groups so being vague by omission of content, supported by sourcing, could have ramifications. The United Kingdom and the United states have various laws concerning pets, wild animals, and exotic animals.

Surprisingly, as of 2021 there are no laws in England against the personal eating of cats and dogs. Jann Arden is campaigning in Canada to stop the air shipping of horses to Japan.

There are eight states with laws actually prohibiting the consumption in the US. The Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act of 2018 (DCMTPA) makes it illegal to ship, sale, and transportation, of animals for the "purpose of slaughter for human consumption". In 2023 the Save America's Forgotten Equines (SAFE) Act, as an addition to the DCMTPA, includes horses.

However, using the term "pet" needs to be definitive. There are strange people all over the world but something listed as a "pet" needs to be clearly understood by links or citations.

There are sites like National Geographic that provides some insight, Domesticated animals are animals that have been selectively bred and genetically adapted over generations to live alongside humans.

Pets are another story. The ASPCA refers to pets as "companion animals" such as dogs, cats, horses, rabbits, ferrets, birds, guinea pigs and select other small mammals, small reptiles and fish. The Animal Welfare Institute considers that horses can be pets. Some show horses are treated better than many humans in castle like "barns". Paws also defines "pets". The ASPCA further defines pets as "companions in the home, or in close daily relationship with humans". Some of these organizations are vehemently against horses being sold for slaughter.

The US ended regulation of horse slaughtering in 2007 effectively ending the practice in the US. Horses were slaughtered in Texas at least as late as 1999-2001 and shipped to Canada, referred to as chevaline, mostly for exporting to European and Asian countries. More countries than most imagine eat horse meat. As an interstate truck driver (48 states and Canada) I hauled swinging beef to speciality and butcher shops in the US and Canada, I never hauled "swinging horse meat" but heard the company did. However, the trade is big in Canada and horses are shipped from the US to Canada to be slaughtered mainly to be shipped overseas. In 2013, 72,000 horses were slaughtered in Canada. [https://www.google.com/search?q=Latest+Canadian+horse+meat&rlz=1C1JZAP_enUS1040US1042&oq=Latest+Canadian+horse+meat&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRirAjIHCAYQIRirAjIKCAcQIRgWGB0YHjIKCAgQIRgWGB0YHtIBCTExNjI3ajBqOagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 This was still going on in 2023 but there are calls to end this. Horses are actually flown live overseas for fresh slaughter. My point is that even the beloved US horses are sold as meat, however, this does not need to be of prominence in the article.

Concerns: 1)- The list, it looks to me like, would be far better presented in alphabetical order for ease of navigation with possibly some tweaking to look better. The "Purposes" column can utilize various notes that will allow the content to be shortened making the article look batter, 2)- There is no realistic argument to those on the list where the article itself identifies (usually in the lead) that an animal is domesticated or where it is clear. If an article uses "Domesticated" (or variants like "Domestic") in the title, or lead, that is one thing, but I see no point in using it over and over again, using redirects to the actual title name, 3)- The word "pet" is used in some cases where it "might" be contested.

I may be slow to respond but plan on looking more closely when I can. At this point I am only "looking" and making suggestions I have seen on a cursory look. Thanks, -- Otr500 (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The table is sortable, so people can sort it by name if they want, but because of BC vs AD (or BCE vs CE, not sure which the article is using), sorting by domestication date doesn't always work, so that's the default sort.

If you can come up with a good scheme for shorthanding the "purposes" column, that would be lovely.

Agreed on removing unnecessary "domesticated"s. If there's something more specific (eg "lab rat"), leave it, but otherwise the species common name can stand alone.

Feel free to either remove pet from a few entries, or make a list of the ones you consider dubious if you want to remove it from a lot of entries. We went through and cleaned up the purpose column once, but it was a while ago. I'm sure it's accumulated some cruft since then. Tamtrible (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's been a month, I'd consider that enough time for objections. Moving forward with cleanup. Shuvuuia (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm also gonna add a comment before the Partially Domesticated table, asking to propose new entries here before adding them to the article. That could help keep the list from becoming unmanageable going forward. Shuvuuia (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Now that we've gone through a round of deletions, I'd like to suggest another round of improvement: gathering citations for each taxon to demonstrate widespread commercial use. These can be taken from the animal's own articles where applicable. Every species that currently lacks a good citation (including if their article lacks citations) would be tagged with Template:Citation needed in the meantime - not deleted yet, but I think it should be clear where evidence of common human use is needed. Thoughts? Shuvuuia (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sounds fair to me. Though I wouldn't necessarily restrict it only to things with widespread *commercial* use, just... widespread human use that isn't either simple predation, or use of purely wild-caught animals (outside of the elephant exception). If there are a substantial number of hobby breeders of a particular pet, for example, I think that qualifies an animal even if there isn't particularly widespread actual commercial use. But, same basic idea. Tamtrible (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article lists the Golden and Bald eagles under the "Tame, partially domesticated, and widely captive-bred animals" with the location listed for the Golden eagle as "Europe, North America, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Africa, Australia", and the Bald eagle location is "North America, Europe, Russia, Africa, Australia" and the purpose for both as "falconry, intercepting, pest control, show, pets"

These need to be edited for corrections. Various laws protect many birds beginning with the Lacey Act of 1900 (amended in 2008) and the Weeks–McLean Act of 1918.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 was the beginning of protection in the US and Canada. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 1940) included two eagles offering complete protection, with the only exceptions being by permits. The act is supported by international conventions with Canada, Japan, Mexico and Russia. The Golden eagle is critically Endangered in the Czech Republic and Albania, where future protection laws are likely.

• management guidelines -- Otr500 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to edit those entries. Our cleanup hasn't gotten that far, but I kind of suspected that those eagle entries would end up on the chopping block. Please, eg, check the pages for each animal, to see if there's evidence that they were historically captive bred, before deleting. Tamtrible (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Don't forget these pets as domesticated 2601:14B:4180:12E1:547D:ABF3:F64B:5409 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply