Wikipedia talk:Conservation status

message: "Loosely" based on the IUCN system? Looks more like a bunch of vaguely defined categories we made up. This looks lie it needs a lot of improvement by sombody who knows what they're doing. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 13:40, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
:Every category except Secure, Prehistoric, and Fossil are directly taken from the IUCN 1994 categories.  They have very specific criteria for each category, too, even if those criteria are not mentioned here.
:Presumably, species are categorised according to their IUCN category if one of the main ones, Prehistoric/Fossil if they fall before IUCN classification, or Secure if they are too common to be even considered by the IUCN. -- Wisq 13:54, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
:Is there any difference between Prehistoric, Fossil and Extinct? From our point of view maybe, but it seems a totally artificial distinction in terms of the animal itself. The phrase 'Conservation status: Fossil' doesn't make much sense either. I think it would be better to unify them under Extinct. Agentsoo 15:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This page defines categories without stating that they follow the IUCN criteria. It doesn't make sense! Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 10:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been fixed. Brian Jason Drake 07:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with ICUN system 

message: === Non-fossilized state ===
What is a "non-fossilized state"? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 08:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A "non-fossilized" state is basically one that has been preserved, I suppose? It seems difficult to obtain information on this. How could this happen, apart from low temperatures? Have past humans preserved anything? Brian Jason Drake 11:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simple to answer: time. Fossilization is a process usually taking many tens of thousands of years at least (depending on local conditions). It results in replacement of organic by anorganic material. Remains in the intermediary state (soft tissue degraded, bones being mineralized) are called subfossil. There are hardly any subfossil remains older than the Holocene, and such preservation is virtually impossible in remains from earlier than the Late Pleistocene. Even then, the only conceivable conditions for non-fossilized preservation would require extreme dry cold or heat and displacement in a tectonically inactive area in a shaded, secluded spot (like a cave in the desert or an Antarctic mountainside). -- Dysmorodrepanis 18:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed it back to indicate that only one specimen needs to be in a non-fossilized state. Brian Jason Drake 10:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to significant part of hypodigm. I don't want some kiddy to put T-rex on "Prehistoric" just because they found some rotten collagen mush in a piece of amber. Dysmorodrepanis 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prehistoric category 

message: What is a "non-fossilized state"? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 08:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A "non-fossilized" state is basically one that has been preserved, I suppose? It seems difficult to obtain information on this. How could this happen, apart from low temperatures? Have past humans preserved anything? Brian Jason Drake 11:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simple to answer: time. Fossilization is a process usually taking many tens of thousands of years at least (depending on local conditions). It results in replacement of organic by anorganic material. Remains in the intermediary state (soft tissue degraded, bones being mineralized) are called subfossil. There are hardly any subfossil remains older than the Holocene, and such preservation is virtually impossible in remains from earlier than the Late Pleistocene. Even then, the only conceivable conditions for non-fossilized preservation would require extreme dry cold or heat and displacement in a tectonically inactive area in a shaded, secluded spot (like a cave in the desert or an Antarctic mountainside). -- Dysmorodrepanis 18:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-fossilized state 

message: Based only on my reading of the two versions in this edit:
* Only one specimen needs to be in a non-fossilized state, making the second version misleading and perhaps incorrect.
* The second version is too complicated anyway. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 04:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back to indicate that only one specimen needs to be in a non-fossilized state. Brian Jason Drake 10:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to significant part of hypodigm. I don't want some kiddy to put T-rex on "Prehistoric" just because they found some rotten collagen mush in a piece of amber. Dysmorodrepanis 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many specimens in non-fossilized state? 

message: I noticed this when reviewing literature on post-settlement pre-contact extinctions in the Pacific: generally, the term used by scientists is "fossil" even if it is technically a subfossil. One can, e.g. safely assume that at least one specimen of any sufficiently documented extinct avian taxon found in a Central/Eastern Polynesian Lapita site would, with sufficient care,  yield sequencable DNA or dateable collagen: in any case extraction of organic material has been attempted, it has succeded. Yet these specimens are habitally referred to as "fossil". Basically, the border between "fossil" and "prehistoric" can be drawn somewhere around 40-50 KYBP. I expanded the article to point this out. -- Dysmorodrepanis 14:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General caveat 

message: Can anyone change the output text for "pre" to 
 Extinct (Late Quaternary)
please? Thanks. (This should reduce the confusion when some kiddie does not understand "hypodigm" ;-D )  Dysmorodrepanis 03:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Output text

message: "The criteria are authoritative and should be used directly."
"Secure (SE) or Domesticated: no immediate threat to the survival of the species. This category overlaps Least Concern but has been applied to humans and domesticated animals, for which the IUCN criteria are not valid. Examples: Human, Cat, Dog, Llama."
What criteria? What is the difference between "secure" and "domesticated"? What about animals that are only domesticated in some places or for some periods of time? Brian Jason Drake 10:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Someone just removed all but one of the interlanguage links and changed the remaining one to be in the Wikipedia namespace. The edit is here. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 08:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interlanguage links 

message: "Fossil: not a conservation status as much as an indication that the species is only known from the fossil records. Examples: Tyrannosaurus rex, Ammonite."
I would say it's not a conservation status at all. Animals with the conservation status "Fossil" should really be labelled "extinct" or "data deficient". Brian Jason Drake 10:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because they are not known from tissue remains and "data deficient" means something completely different anyway. Dysmorodrepanis 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossil 

message: "Lower Risk (LR): Has been evaluated but does not qualify for Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered. ... Least Concern is thus a catch-all category which includes common species as well as those for which there may be conservation concern, but which do not warrant a higher category."
"Examples: ... LRlc: Leopard, Orca."
It appears that this includes what we call "secure" or "domesticated". Brian Jason Drake 10:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably does, yes.  This is one of the categories from the Red List, which has no "secure" (or otherwise) categories.  Hence, there presumably needed to be somewhere to stick the things they've assessed, but found no (immediate) threat for. – Wisq 22:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Least Concern 

message: I think the word "secure" can be further refined. Secure conjures up numerical stability; equilibrium with the environment. Some species are above equilibrium, and are growing in numbers exponentially. Humans would be an example. --35.10.47.197 16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There could be a marker for mega-invasive species like the velvet tree, but humans are through with this since c.1200 AD. Dysmorodrepanis 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plague or Thriving Category 

message: I do not think it is good to list the deprecated format first. Dysmorodrepanis 03:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples and categories

message: There's a debate now on Talk:Chinese_River_Dolphin#taxobox about the situation of that animal. Please advise. Thanks. Xiner 01:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Clarification 

message: Could someone more knowledgeable correct this templateTemplate:Conservation status?  Should it conform to the wikipedia standard or the Red List? Someone added "Functional Extinction" as a conservation classification (when its clearly not, according to both standards. in fact, even the functional extinction wikipage says to use "critically endangered" for functionally extinct species). went ahead and removed the category. Jemecki 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that "functionally extinct" is a good description for a functionally extinct species. Furthermore, the functional extinction wikipage is new, having been set up in the wake of the (presumed) extinction (if one can call it extinction) of the baiji. Therefore, more thought and discussion need to be given to this new category to determine whether or not it is worthwhile.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 00:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, the wikipage said that "critically endangered" may be used under IUCN standards. While the style guidelines say to use IUCN categories "directly when applicable", sometimes non-IUCN classifications explain status better than IUCN classifications, and the baiji is one of those cases.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 00:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are maybe 5-10 cases where taxa could be reasonably classified as functionally extinct, if indeed so many. Strictly speaking, it applies only in cases where nothing but sexually incompatible individuals of a sexually reproducing organism exist. I know (off-hand) no animal that would presently warrant such a classifications; the only species that come to mind are some species of palm trees. Not even the baiji - this should actually be the first mammal species for which the new BirdLife category PE (critically endangered, possibly extinct) would apply. It exactly fits the criteria: survival unknown, if survives population is very very small, but might be sufficient for the species' survival (in the case of the baiji I think probably not sufficient, because inbreeding depression can be assumed to be significant in this species - its life-history and demecological parameters all fit the bill for the group of spp where inbreeding depression becomes a major problem at population sizes of a few 100 mature individuals already). Dysmorodrepanis 12:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I have no problem with "Functionally extinct" being listed within the template, as it is a valid way to describe a population's conservation status. However, this shouldn't be confused with the conservation status on the taxobox where it should NOT be used, as "Possibly Extinct" or "Critically Endangered" can be used instead, and because no authority uses "Functionally Extinct" as an actual category. What goes in the template does not have to conform with what goes in the taxobox. —Pengo 05:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation status template 

message: There should be a space to at least be able to voice doubts about this system.  To start, the idea of "conservation status" and the categories therein are non-neutral.  They imply that all animals are the subject of conservation, that is, the need of human protection.  How about tapeworms?  Human lice that depend only on humans for survival?  Smallpox?  I need to look those up.  And the lowest category is "least concern."  That implies that all species are subjects of concern.  Not all animals are subjects of conservation.  A lot of animals are getting along just fine without us.
:You misunderstand the scope and purpose of conservation status classifications. With the new system used on WP, it becomes clear that the conservation status is according to some organization's (such as the IUCN) classification system. See for example the Butchard/Stattersfield/Brooks paper here which introduces a new category not subject to the IUCN system. See also the NatureServe classification system which has a "Secure" category, etc. 
:Plentiful species, namely invertebrates, are usually "Not Evaluated" according to IUCN. Dysmorodrepanis 12:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation.  Indeed it makes more sense to use this system only on threatened species.  What makes the issue confusing is that despite this intent, this classification system has been used on articles of non-threatened species, as others have noted some above (e.g., humans, domesticated animals, brown/Norweigan rats). I believe the classification system would carry more weight if it were used more judiciously / with more restraint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.56.197.66 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I agree with some of your points. I tried changing "conservation status" to "population status" once, but that apparently has a different meaning, and people seem to like "conservation status"... any other suggestions? The "Least Concern" category is an unfortunate name, and I wish the IUCN would use names like NatureServe such as "Apparently Secure" (G4) and "Secure" (G5). I don't think non-threatened species should have the conservation status removed though, as it shows they have been assessed. However, many plant species have been given a default "Secure" status on Wikipedia which doesn't seem to have come from any authority, or at least I've never come across a reference for any "secure" plant species. The wikipedia-specific conservation status of "domestic" should probably not be used at all, as a domesticated animal can still have their wild populations threatened with extinction (e.g. golden hamster and axolotl). It's pretty difficult to change large numbers of taxoboxes though and to push change. —Pengo 04:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; in cases where I find no mention of taxonomic status for wild population, I have fallen back on using NE. Dysmorodrepanis 05:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections to status as "Consensus" 

message: The C qualifier... is it synonymous to IUCN EW? If so, it could be easily implemented. Dysmorodrepanis 01:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NatureServe

message: An IUCN representative contacted me, asking if I could make a minor change to Template:Taxobox so that "(IUCN Red List)" is shown instead of "(IUCN)" when conservation data comes from the IUCN Red List. In order to keep discussion together, please leave any comments at Template talk:Taxobox#IUCN Red List status. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUCN Red List status 

message: When editing an article how do I get the little boxes like these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Status_iucn3.1_EN.svg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.246.234 (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It happens automagically when you correctly fill in the "|status=" field. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Do I Make The Little Boxes? 

message: Is it possible to have two separate conservation status classifications in the taxo box? For example the IUCN system and a system for a particular country. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) -
:Currently not. Best put the details in the article text.
:I'd like to see a template for an out-of-taxobox conservation status box if there's demand for it, which could include details such as subspecies and multiple systems, and maybe other details (e.g. trend, year assessed).
:Alternatively a telescopic taxobox (with show/hide) could mean enlarging the conservation status area to include multiple systems would be less of an issue.
:What do people think of these options? —Pengo 07:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be a call for up to three separate conservation classification system I would guess but I suspect one (IUCN Red List) would be commonly used, if any are used at all. I would like to see the ability to display up to three systems at once in the taxo box.  The IUCN system is the most comprehensive and so it should be displayed in unison with other systems. It would also mean that automatic assignment to separate categories for the separate classification systems could be done. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 06:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two separate conservation status classifications in taxo box 

message: Am I correct in thinking this is not a conservation status? What would things that are considered pests be classified as?--Marhawkman (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pest" has nothing to do with conservation. There are species in every category that are regarded as "pests". - UtherSRG (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: A pest is a species that is considered too plentiful resulting in conservation (or agricultural or health) issues. The species that are treated here are those that are threatened with extinction, generally due to human activity. See also conservation status. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I see. I was mentioning it since many non-native species in the "Least concern" category are also considered pests.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pests are almost by definition a plentiful species. It would therefore follow that they would be in the least concern category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "over plentiful" was what had me wondering. IE a species that is expanding rapidly and inbalancing the ecosystem further.--Marhawkman (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "pest" status 

message: As the title suggests, a new IUCN Red List (2008) update has been released.  We now need a new template based on the IUCN 2006 template for 2008.  Could someone create this, please?  If non-admins can do this, I'll try to figure it out.  (I'm relatively new and have never created a template before.)
Thank you for your time.  - Visionholder (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't difficult to create the new template, so I created it using the 2006 template code with appropriate modifications.  If I did everything properly, an admin might want to look it over and restrict editing privileges sometime soon.  - Visionholder (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New IUCN Red List (2008) released 

message: In a lot of parts of the world, species have gone extinct before 1500, but well within periods of clear historical records. It seems odd to have a species listed as prehistoric, and then potentially have the article full of historic references to it. Conversely, in other regions a species may have become extinct in prehistoric times since 1500. Why not define prehistoric in terms that relate to the meaning of the word, or find another word for the category?
190.42.148.248 (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prehistoric history 

message: Or maybe I just need some help.  In any event, I have a species that is,  "At Risk - Naturally Uncommon."  There is no 'At Risk' nor 'Naturally Uncommon' category, so shoul I put "RR = Range Restricted?"  Does the template need to be updated?  I can't even find the template, nor am I the best at coding, but I'd appreciate someone helping me sort this all out.  Nessie (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand Threat Classification System (NZTCS) needs updating 

message: I generally work on tropical plants. Most of the IUCN assessments for tropical plants were complied by Americans in 1998 and are horribly badly researched/done. I see that other editors use Nature Serve for the USA and something else for Australia. Looking at this page I conclude apparently only organisations from rich English-speaking Western nations get to decide on conservation status... Seems biased! I would like to propose switching out the assessments with those of the Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora for those plants native or largely native to Brazil. Regarding dipterocarps, the Malaysian Red List is miles better than the IUCN. SANBI in South Africa also published better stuff for that region than the IUCN. India is also in the process of setting up something comprehensive. (originally posted here) Cheers, Leo   86.83.56.115 (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This was further discussed at [[WT:WikiProject_Plants/Archive70#Can_I_get_rid_of_the_IUCN_conservation_assessments?] and an option for CNCFlora added. An option for the SANBI Red List of South African Plants has also now been added (see section below). —  Jts1882 | talk  09:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I switch out the IUCN conservation assessments?