Talk:List of introduced species

mis-named

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)

Let me provide an example of why this list is potentially "silly": Considering flowering plants alone, some 2000 species are known to be growing in nature in the Hawaiian Islands. Of these, fully 50% are non-native or introduced species. Similarly large percentages can be generated for non-angiosperms, aquatic (fw) fauna, mammals, birds, and arthropods. As islands in the Pacific, Hawaii would be justified in having its own subsection here, separate from USA. Indeed, California could likely cite similar numbers and be justified in having its own subsection separate from USA. So could Florida, Puerto Rico, indeed a great many of the tropical and subtropical countries in the world, etc., etc. Personally, I find it very interesting to see a list of all the introduced species in various locations. But a complete listing is neither achievable nor desirable. I would suggest that the line in the intro: "..unless they are a particular problem in the region under consideration" be taken seriously, and that official sources be used to determine that fact (see my comment above). Otherwise this list is heading for the "Wikipedia lists that are too dumb to be useful" heap 8^}- Marshman 01:04, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC).

"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)

I agree with Marshman. I think the list should at VERY least only include animals that have ESTABLISHED, non-native populations. It would NOT include things like hamsters and hedgehogs in North America, since i don't believe occasional escapees constitute an invasive species. In addition, if the animal IS native to the continent it's listed under, it can't really be considered introduced to that continent since it already lives there. It would only be a regionally introduced species. We should really fix this stupid thing. --TaeKwonTimmy (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I agree, captive species with the occasional escapee should not be included. However, the list does lack some notable species in the introduced insects in the USA part, such as European mantis and Chinese mantis, as well as the European mole cricket. These species are surely invasive species, introduced by man.

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)

Sequence

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)

I would appreciate a list of all the BG birds

I found a bird with a broken leg in bulgaria and since my mom won't let me take it to the vet, I have to care for it. Therefor, I need to know what type it is so I know what to feed it and in what type of environment to keep it.

Thank you for the info

Refactor needed

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)

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)

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)

Add Homo Sapiens Sapiens to the list

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)

Then why aren't humans added to the list of introduced species (probably never)? 2601:206:8101:1600:D4E7:ED95:A0EB:B735 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Japanese Macaques in Texas

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 [[1]] 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)

Look up the Japanese macaque page and it says in the distribution and habitats that it was introduced to Canada, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Minnesota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.166.0.70 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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, Jameel the Saluki, 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)

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)

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)

About the camels, coatis and such

Why did you removed them? The website gave evidence of coatis, camels, etc. in Europe and Great Britain! This website is official, not fan-made, so why did you removed them?!

Again, what website? If you don't provide sources, they can't be evaluated. Show your sources here and we can discuss them.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

- Coati removed from Britain: the quoted source in itself is not remotely reliable. It is a webpage that is undated, unsourced, and has little detail, and certainly no detail about how the information was arrived at, simply 'A small population exists in the Lake District, they have been present for several years.'. The author gives his name as Mark Hows and no other information, and I can't find out anything else about him, so he is essentially anonymous. Even if this information is true it is not enough evidence of a breeding population. Researching the net, it appears that there was a spate of sightings around the Lake District in 2010, but none since. This news article is more recent - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/buckinghamshire-resident-films-rare-south-american-coati-in-back-garden-10033798.html. In it it describes sightings over the last 10 years as a 'handful', and 'In 2010, a study by the University of Hull, estimated that there were about 10 coatis living wild in the UK' - which is not enough to establish a breeding population. The weight of evidence indicated that these were released pets, and that a breeding population has yet to be established.

- Coati removed from Europe as source is the same as above, discussing only England. Quick review of sources indicated no breeding population in Europe

- Bactrian camel removed from Europe as no source given, I can't find anything on it at all, and it would seem very unlikely. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Pigs in Caribbean

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)

Why did you removed most introduced animals in Texas?

I've discovered that here: http://www.huntsintexas.com/blackbuck-hunts-in-texas/ , blackbucks are found in Texas's wilderness, and the site also listed elands, barasingas, Chinese water deer, etc. living in the same place. So why do you keep removing them if the site said they're on the same nonnative location they're found in as blackbucks are? 2601:206:8100:3440:28CE:851:C71D:90D4 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Dylan Hooton

Dylan, glad finally to get a name. Please look carefully at the text in the source. For blackbucks it states "PBGSO has access to some of the top ranches, both free range, and high fence for Blackbuck hunts in Texas". I put the free range in bold. This site is offering hunters a chance to shoot free range blackbuck. If you go through all of the other creatures that you had added, all of them were ones held on ranches, and none were free range. Please also note that I added three other references to the blackbuck entry, because the www.huntsintexas.com site is not an adequate enough source to make any claims unsupported (commercial and could be fibbing a bit). So I used the other three references to indicate authoritatively that there has been free ranging blackbuck, but because they are all relatively old sources I added in the www.huntsintexas.com site to indicate recency. But the key thing is that the www.huntsintexas.com lists the blackbuck as free ranging and none of the others.

I appreciate that you are trying, and want to make a contribution, but as you will have noticed I undo most of your entries. The key is thorough researching from a variety of different sources, reading the sources carefully and then coming up with a judgement as to whether or not breeding populations still exist in the areas claimed. If a source does not explain how it came to that conclusion, eg with the california site you've been using, it is likely an unreliable site. The iucn invasive species database looks authoritative, and has lots of useful information, but I've found to to be unreliable with regards distribution. I suspect this is because that section was underfunded, was only half-finished and is no longer maintained. The IUCN redlist site is quite good (though not 100%) and the only one with limited background information that I mostly trust, though even here it can be wrong. I've found very few sources that are 100% trustworthy. The only one close to definitive is Pyle's Hawaiian Birds. I am happy to explain why I explain my use of sources in detail if asked. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Chinese giant salamander

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 [2] does not mention this...) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

Brown Tree Snake

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)

Ferrets

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)

Could Dylan please create an account - see Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account?. You have made numerous controversial edits, through numerous mobile IPs, and I and probably others need to talk to you. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Then why was the ferret listed as California's invasive species if it has never been introduced to California? That doesn't make sense. It shouldn't be on the list if it was never introduced there. 2601:206:8100:3440:ADD8:779F:367D:F089 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Dylan Hooton

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"" [3]. 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)

We need to talk about why some of these animals are on the list if they never were introduced

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)

All removed from the list Jameel the Saluki (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Of goats and ibices

Hi Jameel the Saluki, 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)

Hydronium Hydroxide - 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)

Jameel the Saluki - thanks, I see. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixing the List of Doom

Should this article actually exist in anything like its current List Of Doom format, particularly since content not only overlaps duplicatively /inconsistently with other articles, but is inconsistent between countries (etc) in this article. Should it instead be a list of lists ala Lists of invasive species? For example...

• Split off List of introduced species#United States and Canada to List of introduced species in North America
• List only introduced non-invasive species there under a "Non-invasive species" (sub)subheading in each (sub)section.
• Transclude lists of invasive species from List of invasive species in North America under an "Invasive species" (sub)subheading in each (sub)section.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I am open to any suggestions. The current format as defined by the title is not maintainable. It is impossible to list every species of life that has an established population. Plants are particularly problematic. Let me list my thoughts on the general topic before moving onto commenting to the specific suggestions by Hydronium^~Hydroxide

• currently the list is accurate for only for mammals and only for the for when a species has moved from one of the listed areas to another and where that is not a reintroduction, and only species which currently have an established population. Some of the other areas are complete for birds and fish, but likewise not for reintroductions and not for intra-regional introductions.
• I have not been excluding introductions from one area to another inside the areas described (eg: east coast USA to west coast), but in no way is this list currently remotely inclusive, I would estimate that the list would triple in size if this were done, and it does become rather arbitrary after a point.
• the list has not been excluding reintroductions, but it does beg the question as to whether these should be included or labelled differently. Fortunately these are a relatively small number
• it should be possible to maintain the list for the vertebrate species of the world, depending on how much intra-regional introductions are mentioned.
• it is essentially impossible to maintain this list for plants and many invertebrate animals. Only species of interest could ever be listed/
• there are many other related lists already, with some subtle variations
• lists of invasive species are different to lists of introduced species. Invasive species are usually considered to be a special subtype of introduced species, but some lists (I don't know about Wikipedia) include species that are potentially invasive and have not yet been introduced.
• it is possible to consider a list of introduced species as ones that have ever established a population (which was later eradicated), rather than this list which only includes currently established populations. For example there is a 'List of placental mammals introduced to Australia'. I have already suggested that the list include species that are no longer established (as the list already does), to distinguish it from this list of all species (which doesn't).
• the lists need to consider inter- vs intra-regional introductions. For example a list of introduced species to the US may just list ones that naturally never existed anywhere in the US, or it may include species which have been moved around the US eg: from east coast to west coast. This list is neither inclusive nor exclusive of intra-regional introductions, and these can pose issues in definition - for example if a deer is reintroduced from a reservation into a new reservation 10km away, is this worthy of the list?
• even if there were no overlaps with other lists, this one, if not already, has the potential to become unreadably large, never mind unmanagable. Sub-lists sound a good idea, and I am happy to support any reasonable breakup, so long as it is well defined. The work I have done here would not be lost.

With regard to the specific suggestions by Hydronium^~Hydroxide

• if there are any inconsistencies please point them out and I can try and resolved them. I'm not sure how splitting the list up will resolve inconsistencies
• there are apparent duplications, but as I mention above, with perhaps subtle differences. There is, however, currently no cohesiveness nor completeness to the list of lists, as each of the lists appears to have sprung up independently from different editors.
• there are two potential problems with a non-invasive introduced list

1) as I point out above, lists on external sites often include potentially invasive species in their lists that have yet to be introduced, which means invasive would not be a subset of introduced.

2) if we define invasive as a subset of introduced (and is that currently introduced or ever introduced?) then the non-invasive list seems counter-intuitive. Perhaps merely mark invasive species differently on an introduced list? But then some people might like a separate invasive list.

I agree that the current format of the list is not particular helpful to the casual reader. My interest in maintaining it had been merely to attempt to collate the information. I would also like to point out that the collation of the information is not being done adequately by any source anywhere, so if done properly, this would be unique to Wikipedia, though it does highlight the difficulties in the task.

So yes, some action should be taken to make this page more sensible. I am open to suggestions. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jameel the Saluki:: It seems cleanest to treat invasive species as a strict subset of introduced ones. Lists of introduced species should explicitly list only non-invasive species, but would either transclude related lists of invasive species, or just link the lists. If transcluded, the exact content from the invasive list would be displayed on the introduced one, but would not get out of sync, and edits to the invasive listing would only need to be made on the one page.

Early examples of inconsistencies on this page include:

• Bridal creeper is listed as an introduced species in Australia. Its article indicates that it is a "serious environmental weed", but it does not appear at List of invasive species in Australia.
• Binomials are not generally listed here, whereas a number of the invasive species lists do list them.
• The Australian feral animals table is similar to the one from Invasive species in Australia. The tables are now out of sync, and when one is updated with significant information (eg, estimated population), the other is likely to remain out of sync.

Am happy with whatever you and/or others decide on as the best criteria for inclusion. Given that Hawaii uses one list, but North America covering both US and Canada (?Mexico?) uses another, broad regions appear to be far easier to use rather than a highly granular breakdown where areas are contiguous, even though different species on the broad list may have a more restrictive range. Perhaps a method of defining subregions for lists could be looked at later. Listing only key species (those justified by RS) appears reasonable, and the leads for lists could indicate this. If a pointer to the source is provided, duplicating an entire long list is probably unhelpful, particularly where there's doubt.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide: It all sounds reasonable, and I'll be working towards that. I've started cleaning up some of the inconsistencies with the other lists, but only in terms of content. With regards your examples

• Currently I'm not touching plants at all. No comprehensive list of either introduced nor invasive species is possible for any large area. Any species listed will just have to be 'notable' ones, which usually ends up being whatever favourite someone edits in. I've got no ideas for the moment.
• I hadn't been considering consistency in presentation yet. Perhaps binomial followed by a common name would look best.
• I'll get on to all of the tables eventually (I guess). Feral animals are a subset of introduced, but not necessarily the same as invasive, though I would imagine they are very similar. Perhaps some of the lists need to disappear also, particularly if no-one is maintaining them.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Helmeted guineafowl

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)

Chestnut-bellied sandgrouse (Pterocles exustus)

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. [4] says P. exustus has been introduced to the USA (but not Hawaii), however one of its sources [5] 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)

Japan

@Dinosaurus4321: - 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)

Great Britain has its own section, rather than being in continental Europe, so why not Japan? Also, I'm also saving some room for continental Asia, so that's why I Rearranged Japan into a different section. Dinosaurus4321 (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Dinosaurus4321: - firstly the section on Great Britain includes ALL European islands - this means not just the British Isles, but Iceland, Sicily, Malta, Madeira, Balearic Islands, Crete, Greek Islands, and Channel Islands. If the Japan is a copy it would also entail including all islands around Asia, not just Japan. The logic behind separating islands in general from the mainland is to, I assume, highlight the extra problem that islands face. Secondly, we don't really know the reason behind the separation of European islands from Europe, and this could be flawed. It is no more valid to argue that Japan should be given its own list because of GB, than to say GB needs to be included in Europe because there isn't a Japan list. There needs to be some reasonably objective reasons for deciding how the list is generated, rather than each editor arbitrarily enforcing his or her own whimsical preference. Thirdly - your apparent explanation for the generation of Japan is "I'm also saving some room for continental Asia, so that's why I Rearranged Japan into a different section.". Why does Asia excluding Japan need room saved?
• @Dinosaurus4321: - I don't agree with the separation of Japan, but I'll keep it as it is and make sure that it is correct, as it can always be moved onto a new article. Asia must be worded as Asia excluding Japan. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hypostomus plecostomus

@Totodu74: - could you please explain to me your latest edit, it makes no sense to me at all. There are two issues. Firstly the claim that a Pterygoplichthys species has been misidentified as Hypostomus plecostomus. A reference is supplied to support this claim (Weber, Claude; Covain, Raphaël; Fisch-Muller, Sonia (2012). "Identity of Hypostomus plecostomus (Linnaeus, 1758), with an overview of Hypostomus species from the Guianas (Teleostei: Siluriformes: Loricariidae)") yet nowhere in the article does in mention Pterygoplichthys, and from what I can gather it is entirely about species determination within the genus Hypostomus. The fact sheet [6] by NAS for Hypostomus plecostomus acknowledges previous misidentifications, with Pterygoplichthys, under the Remarks section. The distinct implication being that the museum specimens from the Texas distribution have not been misidentified. If Pterygoplichthys has not been misidentified then the second issue is whether the incorrect Hypostomus has been identified, as this would be at least partially implied by the Weber reference. Again NAS acknowledges the difficulty in identifying species under Hypostomus, and implies that the species identification of Hypostomus plecostomus could well be wrong, but that it is a good placeholder until more precise determinations can be made. The Weber paper goes somewhat into the problem of species identification within Hypostomus, but it doesn't specifically help with the Texas determination, despite actually mentioning it in the article.

I will reiterate - what you have posted doesn't make any sense and needs clarification. I am also concerned that the changes made to the Hypostomus plecostomus page are equally confused. Please clarify and elaborate your position, specifically in reference to the Weber article.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jameel the Saluki: The situation is confused in the litterature and you can notice English is not my mother tongue, but I can try to detail it here. Telling apart Hypostomus plecostomus from Pterygoplichthys species is not difficult: invasive suckermouth catfish are all Pterygoplichthys species, with 11 to 13 rays in the dorsal fin, black patches and marbling on the entire body. Weber et al. (2012) studied the original material of H. plecostomus (the type series from Suriname in the original description of Linnaeus) to assess the true identity of the taxon H. plecostomus: the true Hypostomus plecostomus is restricted to rivers of the Guianas, is beige-brown to brwn with blackish spots, and one spinelet plus seven branched rays in the dorsal fin.

These authors thus confirmed the view of Boeseman (1968) who already stated: "It seems now clear that the present species since Gronovius and Linnaeus has unanimously been misconceived, with subsequent authors gradually including an increasing number of actually separate species" (p. 35), but who did not access the types. In the first sentences of their introduction, Weber et al. reviewed many inappropriate reports of the species in the litterature, including the Texas report by Pound et al. (2011), though I agree they do not provide the corrected identification, as the paper is mostly centred on telling appart Hypostomus species, not Pterygoplichthys. That is precisely why I wrote:

"misidentification, it concerns Pterygoplichthys species"

and not

"misidentification, it concerns Pterygoplichthys species"

I have sources for Pterygoplichthys identity in Florida (for instance Nico et al. (2009)) or in other places of the world (Taiwan, Thailand...), not for Texas, except this is a wrong identification (scientific-sounding folk taxonomy, I would say).

FYI, I have been reviewing all the files depositted in Commons, and Soulkeeper placed this nice warning and identification guide. Totodu74 (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)