Wikipedia talk:Conservation status

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comparison with ICUN system

"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. Brian j d | 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)

This page defines categories without stating that they follow the IUCN criteria. It doesn't make sense! Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 10:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Brian Jason Drake 07:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thought to be extinct

There should be a distinction between species that are known to be extinct and species that are only thought to be extinct.

The ivory-billed woodpecker is now critically endangered, having come back from extinction. You can't come back from extinction, except by actually having one or more of your species actually return from the dead, which no one has claimed. The standards for stating that a species is 'extinct' should be high. Robert McClenon 23:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what distinction you're making. The current guideline for extinct says: "is presumed to have died beyond reasonable doubt." I'm not an expert, but I assume there can't be any absolute certainty and so all species "known" to be extinct are actually only "thought" to be extinct. --Dmcdevit·t 00:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Right. And in the case of the IUCN Red List (what our categories were based on), if they just don't know, it gets reclassified from Extinct to Data Deficient. There is no "maybe extinct", there's only "we're pretty certain it's extinct" and "we don't have enough information to say either way". — Wisq 06:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The latter is not true. The BirdLife "Critical (Probably Extinct)" category will probably be adopted by IUCN when they next revise their criteria (the BirdLife redlist has somewhat superceded the IUCN list for Aves, since it is continually updated on-line and not revised annually). At any rate, "DD" (data deficient) denotes that no clear indications of threat exist (precautionary principle). The classical DD species are newly described taxa from seldom-visited areas scuh as the mountain ranges of New Guinea. -- Dysmorodrepanis 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to be adversarial, but that means it is true until they next revise their criteria. :) And I've certainly seen species move from "EX" to "DD" (as well as "EX" to "CR"). While I agree DD can mean just about anything, these are presumably cases where they aren't actually certain it's extinct any more. What I don't know is if that's because they have no info and can't be certain any more, or because they've had unconfirmed sightings, or their extinction certainty criteria changed, or what. – Wisq 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think moves from EX to DD are based on reassessment of taxonomic status or whatnot rather than on genuine reassessment of conservation status, or due to changes in redlist criteria. EX is a classification which at least nowadays can only apply for taxa where sufficient information is known to preclude DD status in the first place. As a rule of thumb, DD means "virtually unknown, maybe EN, but probably VU or LR". Anything they suspect to be CR or worse was moved out of DD by 2004, at least for birds IIRC.

I updated the page with more on CR (PE) and will add a peer-reviewed ref later. Dysmorodrepanis 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prehistoric category

[edit] Non-fossilized state

What is a "non-fossilized state"? Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 08:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] How many specimens in non-fossilized state?

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. Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 04:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] General caveat

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)

[edit] Output text

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)

[edit] Unnecessary inclusion of conservation status for common domestic animals and humans

The text box prominently stating "Conservation status:secure" shown in the text box for humans and common domestic animals is unnecessary. When I see an obvious fact like this in a such a prominent place in an article such as cat or human I feel it degrades the quality of the article. It's like adding "Gender:Male" at the top of a text box for an article about the Pope.

It could also be seen as not NPOV if one considers that the conservation status of a species is not necessarily the most interesting thing about it and in some cases is entirely obvious. By including this information prominently in all articles about animals, including common ones, one is given the impression that the authors of the articles wish to remind the reader of the importance of conservation of endangered species. Considering that preserving species is controversial in many cases as it involves a balance of interests between human activites (farming vs ecotourism for example), this is definitely POV. By the same reasoning, including "Gender:Male" in an article about the Pope would tend to imply the POV that female Popes should be allowed, or that the Church is sexist.

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Gdr 18:05:52, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

[edit] "Domesticated" status

Perhaps we should create a "Domesticated" conservation status, including animals such as the Cat, Dog, and Dromedary camel, which are classified as extinct in the wild because all remaining individuals of that species are domestic or feral. It just seems better than listing the dromedary as extinct in the wild, considering that there are around 2.5 million domestic dromedaries. Bart133 (t) 22:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree. "Extinct in the wild" implies that the animal is only kept in limited captivity situations (zoos, preserves), and that reintroduction attempts may be in progress. "Domesticated" implies that they only live in proximity to humans (any sort of proximity, possibly in great numbers), and that humans have no intent to reintroduce any wild populations. — Wisq 17:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Are there any animals that live both in the wild and in close proximity to humans? This is particularly significant where we use very general terms such as "cat". Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 15:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

"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)

Can somebody explain why humans are considered domesticated? On the human page, the conservations status is secure, not domesticated. Somebody needs to change one or the other!

[edit] Interlanguage links

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. Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 08:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fossil

"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)

No, because they are not known from tissue remains and "data deficient" means something completely different anyway. Dysmorodrepanis 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Least Concern

"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)

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)

[edit] Plague or Thriving Category

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)

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)

[edit] Template reference

I belive this data is usefull here, I copied it from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/taxobox_usage -- unknown contributor

Updated to new syntax Dysmorodrepanis 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Conservation status may optionally be included; you can search the IUCN's database of threatened species to find the conservation status of many organisms. It is included via the status argument, which takes a code or template.

| status = code

| status = EX
| extinct = year

Use the first syntax (with one of the codes below) except for extinct animals when you wish to show the year of exinction. The code may be all upper or lower case, but the cases used in the table are preferred.

You may come across the old syntax for conservation status also:

| status = {{StatusTemplate}}

If you find a taxobox like this, you can safely replace the template with the corresponding code, see also taxobox status.

The following status codes are available (the third column shows the corresponding template, but this is obsolete and the code is preferred):

Status (as shown in taxobox)	Code	Template (obsolete)
Template:StatusSecure	secure ¹	{{StatusSecure}}
Template:StatusDomesticated	DOM ¹	{{StatusDomesticated}}
Template:StatusConcern	LR ¹	{{StatusConcern}}
Template:StatusLeastConcern	LC or LR/lc	{{StatusLeastConcern}}
Template:StatusNearConcern	NT or LR/nt	{{StatusNearConcern}}
Template:StatusConserveConcern	LR/cd	{{StatusConserveConcern}}
Template:StatusVulnerable	VU	{{StatusVulnerable}}
Template:StatusEndangered	EN	{{StatusEndangered}}
Template:StatusCritical	CR	{{StatusCritical}}
Template:StatusExtinctW	EW	{{StatusExtinctW}}
Conservation status: Critical (Possibly Extinct)	PE	(new)
Template:StatusExtinct	EX	{{StatusExtinct\|when=[[year]]}}
Template:StatusData	DD	{{StatusData}}
Template:StatusUnknown	NE	{{StatusUnknown}}
Template:StatusFossil	fossil ^1,2	{{StatusFossil}}
Template:StatusPrehistoric	pre ¹	{{StatusPrehistoric}}
Template:StatusSeeText	text ¹	{{StatusSeeText}}

Notes:

Not a valid IUCN Red List category.
| status = fossil is deprecated in favour of | fossil_range = start-end:

The stratigraphic range for groups known as fossils may also be included, using the fossil_range argument. For instance, for a group known from the Cambrian to the Permian,

| fossil_range = [[Cambrian]]–[[Permian]]

For groups that still exist, the second period should be given as "Recent" or as "Holocene" for Late Quaternary extinctions such as moa, and the current status should be indicated using the status argument. For groups that only existed during a single period, simply list it without giving a range.

To add a reference for the status, you can use

| status_ref = <ref>{{IUCN | ...}}</ref>

See {{IUCN}} for the arguments you need to supply to that template. And don't forget that <ref>...</ref> requires a corresponding <references/> in the References section.

Alternatively, you can cite the reference by any other way you prefer (especially if it is a source of further information for the article) or link an authoritative online reference directly.

[edit] Examples and categories

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

[edit] Questions

As far as I am aware, "secure" status is nowhere defined. It probably should be, since, depending on how literally you take the doomsday clock, the fate of the human species (not to mention all those that depend on them for protection and reproduction) could easily be considered far from secure.

Second, the color codes are cheesy, and should probably be replaced with black boldface, or my own personal favorite, italics.

71.102.186.234 5:11 p.m., November 26, 2006 (PST)

[edit] Request for Clarification

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)

[edit] Conservation status template

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Objections to status as "Consensus"

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)

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).

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)

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)

[edit] NatureServe

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

[edit] IUCN Red List status

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)

[edit] How Do I Make The Little Boxes?

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)

It happens automagically when you correctly fill in the "|status=" field. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two separate conservation status classifications in taxo box

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)

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)

[edit] "pest" status

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)