Talk:List of introduced species

message: This page is mis-named. Since it is possible by definition to include all species in the world that are non-native somewhere (an awful lot) as "Introduced Species" this list would be unmanageable and have little meaning.  As the introduction tries to point out, only "Invasives" should be listed here.  The terms are not synonymous in most people's minds (see Introduced species and Talk:Introduced species).  I would suggest not just a name change, but that listings on this page cite as sources the official government/non-government designation of the species as a pest and therefore clearly invasive. This removes potential for POV; and providing such sources would be a very valuable contribution to the Wikipedia of "yet another list" - Marshman 00:03, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Marshman" is probably right. Although "invasives" might be too restricting, I would suggest that the list be "limited" to "naturalized" species, i.e. those that have been introduced and established self-sustaining populations. This would preclude "silliness" like the GB bird list having entries for Canary and Budgerigar... The again, it does seem that very few people give much attention or care to this issue—GRM 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "this list would be unmanageable and have little meaning." And to call it silly and meaningless isn't too strong. It is sad to see that this situation continues more than 10 years later. It is also unfortunate that the confusion between introduced and invasive species persists. When will people understand that invasive species is a small subset of introduced species? For comparison, take a look at this article List of non-native arthropods in North America. Bear in mind that it is only Arthropods, and only North America, and the list isn't even complete as new species keep arriving all the time. If this Wiki list was treated as the given example it would have some value, but the present article is deplorable. --Polinizador (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: mis-named

message: Would it be logical or sensible to order the regions in some way, or shall we just have them "as added"? —GRM 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequence 

message: The table of Australian introduced species doesn't belong in the lead, surely. It should be in a section on Australia. Andrewa (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, to the above comment. I just realized I was editing the wrong section , made four wrong edits (in Australia), now I want to revert it back to before I first started editing and don't know how.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted the Australia list to before I edited on July 30, 2014 manually, then I added (Australia) as a temporary fix, to try to stop the confusion of where the animal has been introduced.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactor needed

message: We are a species introduced into alien environments through human action, such as colonization and slavery. We are also one of the most prolific introduced species as well. BorkBorkGoesTheCode (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Homo Sapiens Sapiens to the list 

message: Japanese Macaques were introduced into Texas, and originally were semi-free ranging. However after disputes with the community and neighbours, they became rehoused into a secure sanctuary, which they remain in to this day. The source [] being used to claim that they are introduced actually states that they are housed in a secure sanctuary. I am able to produce references on the total history of the macaques if necessary, but I can't remember them offhand, nor did I record them when I researched that this species should be removed. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry in Japanese macaque has one sentence - "Introduced to Canada and to the United States on Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado and Minnesota.[6][61]". The first reference [6] can be found here https://archive.org/details/systematicreview104food. All of the natural groups discussed are in Japan, whilst all of the groups outside of Japan are semi-natural. Semi-natural means confined to a research institution for the purposes of behavioural research but with as much natural environment as possible in the context. They are not wild colonies. The second reference is http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/japanese_macaque/behav. The only mention of macaques outside of Japan is one sentence - "Compound displays with more than one individual participating were observed in an introduced troop in Oregon". This is almost certainly the Beaverton research group mentioned in the first reference. Thus the Japanese macaque entry is erroneous, and I am still to see evidence of any currently established wild populations of Japanese macaques in North America. I will be making the appropriate changes to Japanese macaque and List of introduced species if such evidence is not possible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameel the Saluki (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just checked through these sources as well, have amended Japanese macaque accordingly, and came here to make this point. There seems to be no evidence of the existence of reproductive wild Japanese macaque populations anywhere in North America, and I would ask the IP to please check sources before making such claims. As of now, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the disputed statement should stay OFF the page (WP:STATUSQUO). - Thank you, , for going through the list with a fine comb. Really, technically each entry should be sourced, or at least come with the requirement that the linked species article have a sourced statement to the claimed effect. Similar fun and games going on at Livestock.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle that each entry should have a reference supporting that entry. I've been a little reluctant to do that in my current review because I've found reliable and up-to-date sources hard to find and have been relying on getting information from a variety of sources (background reading) to determine authority which a claim of an introduced breeding population could be made. The list is long enough to change without then having to add 3 or 4 sources to confirm each entry and justify them, so I've been leaving that off til later, and then probably only justifying the ones I think that might be challenged. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, without some concerted effort, that kind of standard is not going to happen to this kind of list. I wish it had been set out as such from the beginning. Currently, sourcing contentious entries only is probably the best course.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Macaques in Texas 

message: Feral pigs are found on numerous islands in the Caribbean. The situation is fluid in that most places are attempting eradication so the populations are appearing and disappearing, but the islands have had a permanent history of feral pigs and that situation does not look like changing any time soon. I gave one specific reference to a population that is not going to be eradicated in the near future - the famous swimming pigs of the bahamas http://www.bahamas.com/swimmingpigs. Jamaica appears to have the most stable and difficult to eradicate population - here is an example I did not include as a reference http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20150809/wild-hog-hunters-linked-bush-fires Jameel the Saluki (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pigs in Caribbean 

message: Just a note, this does appear to be legit; the supplied ref is about the Japanese GS, but it notes that the species seems to face competition by the introduced Chinese GS. That should be fine as a ref, I think. (However, the page for the Chinese GS  does not mention this...) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected (yeah!). I've found a better reference, but even in the Japanese sources not much is stated about it, though it appears to be common knowledge, and it seems to have made the news in Japan a few times. Searching for Japanese scientific literature proved impossible. It's funny, as soon as you mentioned it, I suddenly realised that I'd heard it before. It was mentioned on the River Monsters episode. I'll update the entry then rewatch the River Monsters episode. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese giant salamander 

message: The brown tree snake has been entered as an introduced species to US/Canada. I had already removed this entry with the justification 'primary source states nothing http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/speciesname/Boiga+irregularis'. The new entry uses the same reference so let me explain. The reference used in the 'distribution table" is http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/91542/aqb. The reference it uses is 'ISSG, 2011. Global Invasive Species Database (GISD). Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. This reference states nothing about the distribution (see http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/speciesname/Boiga+irregularis). This is what is called the primary source. I have already stated the the GISD is not a reliable source, and the problem has arisen by cabi using it without apparent corroboration from other sources. The reason that the GISD entry no longer mentions the introduced distribution may be that the database was corrected. 
The distribution in the US is also mentioned on the CABI site with the sentence "Brown treesnake encounter reports come from Micronesia, US Mainland, Hawaii and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Stanford & Rodda 2007). " In a previous removal of this entry I made mention that there have been many cases of brown tree snakes being encountered, by no cases, in the US, of any established population. The full citation of Stanford is Stanford JW, Rodda GH, 2007. The Brown Treesnake Rapid Response Team. In: Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species: Proceedings of an international symposium [ed. by Witmer, G. C.\Pitt, W. C.\Fagerstone, K. A.]. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA: USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services National Wildlife Research Center, 175-217. This can be found here - http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=nwrcinvasive. This makes it clear that, as of 2007, there were no established populations in the US Jameel the Saluki (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brown Tree Snake 

message: The ferret has been entered as an introduced species to US/Canada. The reference used to justify this entry is http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/74424. The source that this reference uses is ISSG, 2011. Global Invasive Species Database (GISD). Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. http://www.issg.org/database. The specific entry is http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/speciesname/Mustela+furo. The source uses two references Jurek, 1998 and Stevens, 1975
Jurek, 1998 is Jurek, R.M. 1998. A review of national and California population estimates of pet ferrets. Bird and Mammal Conservation Report, 98-09. Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division. This can be found here - https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83826. This document estimates the number of ferrets that are illegally kept as pets. Feral populations of ferrets are never stated as existing.
Stevens, 1975 is Stevens, W. F. 1975 The biology of the European rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus, on San Juan Island, Washington. Unpublished Master of Science thesis, University of Washington, WA.. This is an unpublished 40 yo masters thesis on a topic not related to ferrets, which is as close as you get to anonymous source when quoting scientific literature. In any case this document - http://www.pltwa.com/uploads/2/7/8/2/27828107/food_chain_background_info_san_juan_islands.pdf - indicates that ferrets were apparently trapped on san juan island in the 1970s, but that they are presumed to have died out sometime in the 1980s
Searching the internet re california you get multiple sites calling for the legalisation of ferret ownership in California, eg:http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ferrets-710318-ban-ferret.html. Not one of them uses the argument that feral populations already exist, which they would almost certainly do if they did
I do implore Dylan, the editor who keeps making such changes, to put in the effort to research his sources properly. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Dylan, an animal is often listed on a country's invasive species list if it is known to be an invasive species and is seen as a threat, real or potential. The determination of the invasive potential can be made from local data, or experience elsewhere is the world. The purpose of such lists is to develop comprehensive plans to prevent or limit the problems of invasive species. With respect to "the ferret listed as California's invasive species", I assume that you are referring to this site - http://ice.ucdavis.edu/invasives/species/mustela-putorius. The page on the ferret gives almost no information. There are no references to justify the inclusion, and the description of the current extent is so brief that it could be interpreted as explained by the large number of ferrets kept illegally as pets, or alternatively the releases or such pets. In general the list has been generated to " to create a list of “invasive species that have a reasonable likelihood of entering or have entered California for which an exclusion, detection, eradication, control or management action by the state might be taken"" . So merely being on the list is not indicative of having established a population. Going through the sites ice.ucdavis.edu/invasives and www.iscc.ca.gov, it seems that the database was set up in 2010 fairly quickly, and with the hope of attracting comment and interest so that the database could be filled out, but that there was no interest and the database has been left in its early state with no changes since 2010. In other words the ferret page was done briefly as a stub to be filled out later, and it never was. In any case, it is clear that the page needs corroborating evidence at the very least. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferrets 

message: Why was the white-faced whistling duck,American alligator, rhinoceros iguana, Rio Grande leopard frog, southern leopard frog, and the barred tiger salamander added to the website's list if they weren't introduced?! They should have never been added to the list in the first place if they weren't established! The owner of these sites might be stupid! They should remove these sites completely! :( 2601:206:8101:1600:D4E7:ED95:A0EB:B735 (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All removed from the list Jameel the Saluki (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: We need to talk about why some of these animals are on the list if they never were introduced

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on List of introduced species. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831054633/http://imb.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=48437&pid=48437&ntemplate=235 to http://www.imb.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=48437&pid=48437&ntemplate=235
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060228100755/http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/cane-toad/ to http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/cane-toad/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922185346/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/european-red-fox.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/european-red-fox.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100521063535/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/camel-factsheet.html to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/camel-factsheet.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101011210024/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/cat.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/cat.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603013209/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/feral-horse.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/feral-horse.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110305033212/http://environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/pig.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/pig.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070623083032/http://myfwc.com/nonnatives/exotics/resultsClass.asp?taxclass=R to http://myfwc.com/nonnatives/exotics/resultsClass.asp?taxclass=R
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi , and thanks for your work in battering this list into better shape. You've reverted ibex a couple of times on the grounds that it and feral goat are members of the same species, but this appears to be an incorrect action. A Bezoar ibex (Capra aegagrus aegagrus) is not covered by its descendant the feral goat, given that that refers to an escaped domestic goat (C.a. hircus). Consider grey wolf (Canis lupus lupus) vs feral dog (C.l. familiaris)... ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: - I was reluctant to allow a separate listing for Bezoar ibex and feral goat because it opened the door to then listing a variety of subspecies and breeds separately. This isn't an insignificant issue, as much conservation work is done at this level, and many subspecies are publicly listed and notified as endangered. There is no doubt that even the level of species is somewhat arbitrary as research is constantly shifting subspecies the species and vice versa, but I felt the line had to be drawn somewhere. Currently the Bezoar ibex and the feral goat are both listed on the page, merely on the same line, rather than separate lines. I am happy to have them listed on separate lines if some objective reason can be done for doing so, such that it doesn't open the doors to every subspecies to then be also listed separately.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - thanks, I see. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of goats and ibices 

message: This bird does get added to the list for North America for time to time, and understandably so given the information available. The latest insertion relied on an IUCN source which mentioned the US by name as a country with an introduced population, however the corresponding distribution map did not include any part of North America. No other details were given and the bibliography is unhelpful. I can find no corroborating information that would support the assertion of a current feral breeding population of helmeted guineafowl anywhere on the mainland US or Canada. So I feel this bird cannot be included in the list.
The issue with this bird is that it is a very common domestic animal with frequent escapes. It is very difficult to determine if sightings are escaped birds or a breeding population, and given the low impact that any feral population may have, it doesn't seem that much research has gone into detecting feral breeding populations. What is more confusing, is that the bird should adapt easily to countries like the US, but even if there are established populations, they do not grow. But to be included on the list authoritative evidence of breeding populations are needed, and at the very least be able to localise one such population.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helmeted guineafowl 

message: Determining the introduced distribution of species is not an easy task, as this is typically not documented well. A good source is iucnredlist, but this is not infallible, and I have found it to be poor when it comes to birds.  says P. exustus has been introduced to the USA (but not Hawaii), however one of its sources  states that it is only Hawaii. Pyle is a golden standard reference for birds in Hawaii, and the P. exustus has definitely been introduced their. I can't find any supporting evidence of P. exustus on mainland North America, only mentions of failed introductions, notably to Nevada. I think it likely that the IUCN reference is in error and has omitted stating Hawaii for the US. If P. exustus does exist as an introduced bird in North America proper a better more specific reference is required for entry into this list. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chestnut-bellied sandgrouse (Pterocles exustus) 

message: - could someone please explain the benefit of introducing yet another division to this list by listing species introduced to Japan separately from those of the rest of Asia. If this is something of interest to the editor why not generate a new page instead? Also why is Asia now labelled "Continental Asia"? Surely a more appropriate title is "Asia excluding Japan", unless the editor is genuinely interested in separating all islands (not just Japanese) from the rest of Asia (eg: Indonesia, Phillipines, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Hong Kong)? I am not convinced that this is an improvement to this list. Further if Japan is separated, what other separations would the editor be suggesting be made next? Is this list going to separate down to the nation level?Jameel the Saluki (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan