Talk:List of extinct animals of Britain

A note

Just began this page. There is a similar page for the USA, but not one that I could see for the British Isles (Great Britain, Ireland, other minor islands). I don't have a great deal of knowledge here, so anyone wishing to edit please do! Grunners 13:34, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dates

Has someone deleted extinction dates? Could have sworn I'd put them in! Grunners 14:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not that I know off, and I can't see anything about that in the history. Anyway, I've updated the Lynx extinction date from 200 AD to 450 AD. As the latest findings, sponsored by the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority were on bones from two caves near Settle, one of which was dated to c1842bp and the other to c1550bp (400 AD). bp = Before Present = Before 1950. Pmaas 16:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Hetherington, D. A., Lord, T. C. and Jacobi, R. M. 2005. New evidence for the occurrence of Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in medieval Britain. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 21 pp. 3-8. ISSN 0267-8179. Pmaas 16:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leopards and Wallabies.

I'm removing Leopards and Wallibies from the list because I have no sources that Leopards were ever in Britain and I'm fairly sure Wallabies still are around in Scotland. However if anyone has any sources that mension them as extinct in Britain I would like to see it.

Leopards inhabited Southern England during the last glaciation.--Menah the Great 11:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the reference for this?--GRM 16:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separation date

" Only species extinct since the British Isles were separated from mainland Europe are included." I think I have read somewhere that the date of separation is 9000BC. If this is the case then there are too many mammals in the list. Does anyone know a reliable source for the separation date?Phoenixis 13:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnacle Goose

I am not at all convinced that "recolonized" is appropriate for this species. Yes, it does "again" breed in the UK, but that from escaped stock. It is not what the birding fraternity call a Category A breeding species in the UK. The winter visitors are what the birders might call "genuine" and therefore Category A birds, but these do not (to the best of my knowledge) stay on to breed--GRM 16:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Horse

I have changed the link for 'Wild Horse' so that it denotes the actual article it relates to eg 'Tarpan' I've done this because there are still populations of wild horses in the UK, for instance in both Exmoor and the New Forest (they are Pony populations but the definition of a Pony is a horse smaller than 14.2 hands) JonEastham 23:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimo Curlew

I don't wish to seem pedantic (on Wiki, perish the thought lol), but how come this is listed as extinct in the UK, but also that it's never been resident in the first place. Surely by that definition kangeroos are extinct in the British Isles? I'm most confused about this. VonBlade 20:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

Hi. A question. Am I wrong in thinking that Britain and Ireland have quite different histories in terms of animal populations? i.e. Britain has a number of animals that Ireland never had at all? Is a page on extinctions in the "British Isles" a bit strange, when the two main islands have quite different animal populations in the first place e.g. no moles, snakes, etc, etc, etc, in Ireland at all.Hughsheehy 10:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Listings of Extinct Animals

I was reading through this section, and I decided to read more about the Arctic Fox (listed as extinct c.10000(?)). Something about this seemed very wrong. I went to the actual article (which referred to the fox as the "Farting box"), and I also did some additional research on that fox. I confirmed that the Arctic Fox is most definitely not extinct. I made the proper adjustments to both the subject and the dates listing.

That stoked my curiousity - I checked out a few more animals listed. Again, some of them were not extinct. I am also curious if the species of a extinct animal was not specified. I just wanted someone to know. Thanks.

tenshiyuna 17:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Move to "List of Extinct Animals of Great Britain"

This article is incorrectly using the term "British Isles". The references used are from sources of the United Kingdom, and cite examples for Great Britain. --Bardcom (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these animals were found in Ireland. The source of the references is irrelevant. If you want to move the page I suggest you look at each entry and split out the Irish ones, and then verify that the remaining list does indeed refer wholly to those animals that are extinct only in Great Britain (don't forget about IoM and other islands). Perhaps it's better to leave it as British Isles. That usage does seem to be extensive in published material on this subject. CarterBar (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CarterBar - some of the animals were found in Ireland only in the same way that they may also have been found in France, etc. The references and published sources also indicate "Britain" in nearly all cases. --Bardcom (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but if they're extinct in the British Isles I guess they should be included here. I don't know if there's an equivalent article for France. CarterBar (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how can it be confirmed that they are extinct in the British Isles? There's no references for Ireland. All we can reference is that they're extinct in Britain (which is what all the references refer to).... --Bardcom (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to move - no mention of Ireland. If necessary create a separate article for Ireland.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need a note to explain what we mean by Britain. It could mean Great Britain (which is only a part of the United Kingdom). It could mean the UK (which includes some but not all of the island of Ireland). It could mean the British Isles. Or it could mean different things in different references. Our list should not just be a collection of references that happen to use the word "Britain" without necessarily explaining what they mean by "Britain". See also Terminology of the British Isles. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least one error

A digger wasp Mellinus crabroneus is listed as extinct since c1950, I assume this is based on the JNCC page, which has the information. However I have recently being doing searches for biodiversity data using the National Biodiversity Network (searnnbn.net)and there is at least one record made in 2000. This is from ordnance survey Grid Square NT08 and was made on 7/7/2000 by Bees, Wasps and Ants Recording Society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.54.34 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. —harej (T) 07:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of extinct animals of Britain → List of extinct animals of the British Isles — A recent politically motivated move has resulted in scientifically incorrect information being present. Request to move back to original, stable, title. I'm unable to move over the current redirect. LevenBoy (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for reversion of an undiscussed move if it was controversial but what scientifically incorrect information is now present because of it? — AjaxSmack 05:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have made a mistake here. I was thinking of the Irish Elk but it turns out this animal was found on the island of Great Britain as well. Nevertheless, "British Isles" is a clearly defined area whereas the alternatives aren't, so from a scientific perspective it would be a more accurate term. LevenBoy (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree, both with the reasoning and with the question. Regardless, the geographically associated term "British Isles" (which is (supposed to be) a geographic term dating back to antiquity, for which there is amble coverage regarding the name dispute.) seems more correct then using a political name, when the object of the article is (supposed to be) a list organized by geographical location. If this were to be refactored into a list according to (current) political boundries then there could be List of extinct animals of Scotland, List of extinct animals of Wales, List of extinct animals of Ireland, etc... I think we can all agree that such constructs would quickly get out of hand, and they really add nothing to the topic.
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If you want to move it - "List of extinct animals of the United Kingdom" or "List of extinct animals of Britain and Ireland". Izzedine (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just now noticed that the category titles use "of Great Britain and Ireland", so it certainly couldn't hurt to keep that pattern (which would mean using List of extinct animals of Great Britain and Ireland).
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Izzedine (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names don't include the IoM or Channel Islands or the large number of other islands in the British Isles. The controversial move to the current name was made without discussion. "British Isles" is definitive and well referenced. The alternatives (Britain and Ireland, United Kingdom, etc) are either ambiguous or of a political nature. LevenBoy (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of extinct animals of Britain and Ireland covers all the islands, see British Islands. Izzedine (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough...

...Support reversion of undiscussed move (i.e., support a move to List of extinct animals of the British Isles) but urge a continued discussion of the best location. — AjaxSmack 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative suggestion: Several other faunal lists that were once listed as "British" were moved/changed to "Great Britain". It seems there is some preference for geographic "Great Britain" and "Ireland" over the political "United Kingdom" and "Irish Republic"—just a comment for the discussion really!—GRM (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It should be List of extinct animals of Great Britain if it doesn't cover any part of the island of Ireland

I haven't researched the list to see if there are any Irish (Republic of) or Irish (Northern Irish) animals in this list, but it seems from the latest bout of moving, the assertion is that this article only covers Great Britain, yet it is still poorly titled as List of extinct animals of Britain, because Britain can also mean the UK and is not a strictly Geographic term. If it is supposed to mean the geographic term 'the island of Great Britain', it should be at List of extinct animals of Great Britain, which is a redirect here. Accordingly, I've requested the housekeeping deletion of that redirect, so if and when that happens, somebody should move this article to the correct title (or, provide evidence that this article contains Irish species and the current title should be British Isles or Britain and Ireland or land of the flying unicorns, instead of Great Britain). MickMacNee (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the article covers the whole of the British Isles; given that there are no animals (or, at least, none listed) extinct in Great Britain and not in Ireland, it also covers the UK, the island of Great Britain or any similar unit. Warofdreams talk 12:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The Houting (coregonus oxyrhynchus) is one such example, as is the Greater mouse-eared bat (Myotis myotis) (also listed) and the Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx) (also listed). They only existed in (and are now extinct from) Great Britain --HighKing (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear - there are no animals listed which have had a sustainable breeding population in Great Britain or Ireland which can now be found in Ireland and not Great Britain. This list was formerly named "list of extinct animals of the British Isles", and that title was equally accurate. It clearly isn't a list of extinct animals of Ireland, which is what you describe. Warofdreams talk 15:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both islands have very different histories as regards fauna, and it doesn't make much sense discussing both islands together. In fact, given the criteria you've set above, it would make much more sense discussing Great Britain in the context of Europe. Great Britain had a land bridge with Europe for a considerably longer period of time, which is why the fauna (and flora) of Great Britain is much more diverse than Ireland's and has much more in common with Europe (hence the reasons for the Houting, Eurasian Lynx, etc, above). --HighKing (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Several of the animals had a range that included Ireland (how about the irish Elk for example?). The orginal name was absolutely accurate and unambiguous but was changed as part of the campaign against the British Isles usage in Wikipedia. I tried to reverse the move but couldn't, hence some inappropriate redirects. A discussion above came to the conclusion that the title should not be changed back to the more accurate version. Perhaps the discussion should be re-opened. LevenBoy (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the British Isles conspiracy theory again. Try making an argument based on the content please... BTW, your argument that several of the animals had a range that included Ireland can be extended to say that *all* of those animals would also have a range that included Europe (see other response above). --HighKing (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Try making an argument based on the content please... BTW, your argument that several of the animals had a range that included Ireland etc. etc.". Do I detect a slight contradiction here? LevenBoy (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, a question - are you an expert or a specialist in this subject? Maybe you are, but let's assume that you're not. If, like me, you aren't, why are you making changes to the content which could result in the introduction of misleading information? Take this reference, for example. It clearly states that some of the animals listed in the article are now extinct in Ireland. I haven't bothered looking for a reference that says they are extinct in Britain but I bet it wouldn't take long to find one. This means that British Isles is correct. To try and alter this by adjusting the title as a precursor to adjusting the contents to better reflect the new title is just gaming the system. This seems to be what's happening here, and it's not the first time this technique has been used to remove the British Isles term. I note your attempt last year under a different user name to rename this article. There was no consensus to do so. More recently User:Vintagekits took it upon himself to move it "out of context" as the saying goes. There is no doubt - the contents of the article would be better served by reference to the British Isles rather than just Britain. LevenBoy (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert. But I'm not a novice either. The article you've pointed out does indeed list animals that are extinct in Ireland. But since you haven't bothered following through on your point, I fail to see the significance. Are you trying to make any specific point (based on content)? I also note that since you couldn't make a point based on content, you couldn't resist falling back on your usual method of commenting on editors though... If you could only find some factual basis for your last sentence, we'd actually have something worthwhile to discuss. As it is, I'm (finally) out of patience with your constant personal comments... --HighKing (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the original request is irrelevant now for the time being, the housekeeping deletion has been declined [1] seemingly because of the above dispute. MickMacNee (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone insert a definition of Britain?

I understand this has been very much under discussion, but it would be helpful if someone would go ahead and define Britain in the intro, otherwise it is hard for readers to be sure what this article includes. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the title is highly misleading, and the article covers the entire British Isles. Warofdreams talk 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Ice Age animals on the list

The Mainland of Britain was connected to the European continental mainland by an ice bridge as recently as c. 6000 BC during the Devensian Ice age :

Source - http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/164.pdf

I would argue that the extension of the normal range of the various arctic animals to the British mainland during that Ice Age does not make them true native animals of the British Isles thus they shouldnt appear on the list.

The other problem for many of these entries is that they have extinction dates that are earlier than the last Ice age which is not in accord with the definition of the list of extinctions since the last Ice age.

What do other people think? 90.203.108.165 (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reintroductions do not refute or invalidate previous extinctions

Surely the historic extinctions of the wild boar & of the beaver should be listed - simply because these have been reintroduced does not mean that they have never been exterminated. Also, the claimed shooting of the last wolf in Scotland in ~1740 is considered doubtful by many sources. Barney Bruchstein (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Northern Hawk Owl

I can find no mention anywhere of the northern hawk owl as being found in Great Britain, certainly not as recently as 1860. Neither the RSPB or the World Owl Trust mention it as being an absent British species. I'm therefore removing it temporarily till someone can find good evidence for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.cranston (talk • contribs) 10:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]