Talk:List of extinct animals of Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinct animals, extinct plants and extinction in general. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

Contents 1 Atlantic Gray whales 2 Right Whale 3 Asiatic Lions in Europe 4 European Union? 5 Irish Elk 6 bears.

[edit] Atlantic Gray whales

Dear PMAAS, I saw you transfered the Gray whale to the "locally extinct" species. You're right that I did not understand exactly what that meant but I would like to moderate this point: as we do not know the specific status of Atlantic and Pacific Gray whales, and as it is a coastal species, I think that as Northern and Southern Right whales, we could give Atlantic Gray whales a species rank. I understand that we cannot give arguments that are not documented but soon as Michael Hofreiter (and at a lesser level I) will precise phylogeny based on mitochondrial DNA. It will be published soon as the sequences are all but one (the Mediterranean sample I provided to him) available.

I see your point. I'm looking forward to that publication. But don't you agree, that until it is not proven that they are different species, and they are generally treated as one species, that it has to remain in the Local section for now. Most reliable sources (that I found) see the Grey Whale as one species that has populations/stocks, not even subspecies. But when you have other info/sources, I would love to read them. Edits are of course always welcome, but it has to able to know the references and it has to be reliable. Peter Maas 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right Whale

By the way what to do with RIght whale ? I know that there are some very few sightings of individuals from the Western Atlantic in Northern Scandinavia a a mother woth calf off Portugal and some other in Canarias and even the Mediterranean but it is thought to be functionnally extinct and even these animals would better represent transatlantic migrants...

Do you have references for those sightings. You could add a comment, or remove it when they still survive. Personally I don't know anything on this species in Europe. Peter Maas 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asiatic Lions in Europe

Someone had changed the county where lions occured in Europe from Greece into Bulgaria. Why? I've changed it back for now until there is more information provided. They have indeed occurred in Bulgaria, but they disappeared from Europe in Greece arround 80-100 AD. If you have addition information with source, please post that here. I would love to read it.

"Aristotle and Herodotus wrote that lions were found in the Balkans in the middle of the first millennium B.C. When Xerxes advanced through Macedonia in 480 B.C., several of his baggage camels were killed by lions. Lions are believed to have died out within the borders of present-day Greece in A.D. 80-100." Source: [1]. Pmaas 22:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] European Union?

What does the European Union, often have to do with anything? Especially when so many of the extinctions listed have occurred before it ever came to existence?

Having this article be about *Europe* is an understandable issue of geographical categorization. Having it be about the European Union, smacks of someone trying to push forward some sort of bizarre POV. Aris Katsaris 11:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well because the EU is Europe too, it is not a bizarre POV. It does not say the article is ablout the EU, but it says, about the European Union and the rest of the European continent. The EU does not end with the European continent. Even speaking of Europe could be a POV to some people's opinions, some see Europe only as a peninsula of Eurasia. The EU has real borders, so it can certainly also be used as a geographical categorization, maybe even better than the "continent" Europe. The Canary Islands for example are Europe, but geographically they are in Africa. Cyprus is for example also geographically in Asia, only culturally European. The whole article is not about the European Union, only the part that lists the extinct animals in the EU's outermost regions. When using the EU as well for this list, you can include these extinct animals too. And some European countries did not even exist at the time most of these species became extinct. So I don't see any problem. Pmaas 16:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well let's take your sentences one by one:

• "Well because the EU is Europe too, it is not a bizarre POV." This sentence is *at best* meaningless. The EU and Europe are two different words, and possess two different meanings. At worst it reveals the fundamental political POV nature of your argument.
• "It does not say the article is about the EU, but it says, about the European Union and the rest of the European continent. Even speaking of Europe could be a POV to some people's opinions, some see Europe only as a peninsula of Eurasia." So instead of using one POV (just Europe) you decided to use two POVs in order to make sure that this article is biased for *sure*.
• "The EU has real borders, so it can certainly also be used as a geographical categorization, maybe even better than the "continent" Europe." An argument which you yourself made null by having *both* Europe and the EU referenced in the article. As for the EU, yeah it has real borders, but they are currently in a state of moving. Moreover these borders are recent, and so don't concern the greater number of extinction that have taken place. *Moreover* the article's title says "Europe", not "European Union".
• "The whole article is not about the European Union, only the part that lists the extinct animals in the EU's outermost regions." Regions which you could have easily included by saying you mentioned the dependent territories of European countries as well. Or you could have equally well chosen *not* to include and allowed these species to be listed in the articles for their respective continents.
• "And some European countries did not even exist at the time most of these species became extinct." These European countries existed further back in time than the EU did. And I never argued that you must use specific European countries at all. If you just used the geographical term "Europe" you'd not need to use any other artificial entity as a criterion for inclusion. The ambiguities of the word "Europe" would atleast be the same as the ambiguities of the word "Europe" in every other article of Wikipedia.
• "So I don't see any problem." The problem is the inclusion of one additional artificial criterion when there's no need of one. The problem is the unceasing attempt to associate the concept of Europe with the concept of the European Union, two utterly distinct concepts. That's a political POV.

No matter what you say the point remains the article's title says "List of extinct animals of Europe" -- but without any cause or meaningful justification, the article's *content* tries to shove the EU in there as well. Why? What's the need to add one more artificial criterion? Since the title says "Europe" why must the article reference the European Union at all? And why not the *Council of Europe*, if you must include an organization with definite membership? *That* one has a more stable border than the EU does. Is it because there are more EU groupies than there are Council of Europe groupies? Aris Katsaris 17:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If it bothers you that much, feel free to edit the page and remove the EU part so that it only says Europe. I will even change it myself. You made some good comments, but it was not an unceasing attempt to associate the concept of Europe with the concept of the European Union, although I'm indeed a supporter of the EU (as you sound like you're a sceptic, but that's everyones choise of course). A possible seperate article for the EU could be created of course. I hope the new article sounds better in your view. Pmaas 12:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Elk

Im deleting the line bugger me backwards for obvious reasons. But I am also uncomfotable with the Irish elk where it is. Its extinction probably isn't man made but been in the Holocene list gives a suggestion that it is. Is it really relevent there? When i'm looking for Holocene extinctions I relate that to a man made cause. I understand that this is your page Peter so if you would rather leave it there I understand. but isn't there some way to make the distiction? Phoenixis 18:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Phoenixis, first it is not my page, but everyone's page. Holocene extinctions are certainly not all human made, even some extinctions from the last 500 years are not human made (although most are). One example: Antillean Giant Rice Rat from Martinique. And scientists differ in opinion if humans did participate in extinctions during the Pleistocene and Holocene. Personally I think they had a contribution, but weren't the only reason. Maybe we can add a text part on the extinction reasons in Europe, clearing it up that not all are human made extinction. Peter Maas 08:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think that would be best. I will add a part in the intro and if you want to reword it you can. BTW I only refered to it as your page because I see that you have made it and supplyed alot of the infomation. I didn't want to barge in and add something which you felt was irrelevent. Also where did you find some of the information regarding the island species? Phoenixis 13:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, kind of you. Thanks for adding. Where I did find the information? Any specific species or island? Well I host a website on recent extinctions [2], and an extinction forum [3] where you can find a lot of information. Besides, there are many scientific articles, books, and sites like the IUCN Red List. Just google for example and you will already find a lot of info on the extinct island species. Peter Maas 14:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bears.

now i know this ,ight sound funny to the non english among you, but werent british bears baited to extinction?

the bear baiting article mentions england a lot, but i could swear that britain used to have bears, and it is a common fact among others that bear extinction in britain came from baiting.

if someone could come up with a citation proving that bears were brought in through the empire (which isnt very likely as baiting was a customary event) or that bears were made extinct in britain i would like to see it included bear-baiting for the article.

on closer inspection, the extinction of bears is in the britsh only section but not in the european section, however the date 1000ad does not correspon with the bear baiting of the 1600s, any ideas?

It is not listed on this European list as it still survives in some parts of Europe. In which British section do you mean? This: List of extinct animals of the British Isles? If you know the extinction date is wrong and you know the correct one, you are free to change it of course. But please use references to avoid reverts, and keep in mind that the "British Isles" are not just the UK, but also Ireland, etc. Peter Maas 20:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)