Talk:List of introduced species
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 long to be useful" heap 8^}- Marshman 01:04, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC).
[edit] 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)
