Talk:List of national animals/Archive 1

Brazil

According to the Brazilian constitution, the only valid symbols are the Hymn, the Flag, the natitional seal and coat of arms (Art. 13, §1)( http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm#adct ). But during the monarchical period (1822-1889) the Wyvern was the unofficial symbol of Brazil, was in the imperial scepter and is still an official military symbol, present in the dragons of independence. 800px 350px

Great, but not really appropriate for this article, then. Feel free to add it to an article on the history of Brazil, if appropriate and if you have a reliable source. --Yamla (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Palestine

Why is Palestine included in this list? Jaccovanderveen (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

VFD

I think it sad that someone put Surender Monkey under France. I know little of Wikipedia so I'm not sure how to change things but I know my American history and the Brits would have never lost to the US colonists without the help of the French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.247.129 (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC) The surrender monkey for France? Kind of funny but surely that should be changed to the cockerel? BV 6.1.07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.222.85 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This whole article seems a bit tenuous to me. What is a "National Animal"? So far as I'm aware, the UN doesn't recognise any such attribute. Some countries, but not all, have "fauna emblems" for their administrative regions. If it's the creatures appearing on the coat of arms, then Australia ought to have the emu listed, and Canada ought to have the lion and unicorn. If nobody can tell me what the definition of a "National Animal" is, then I think this article is a good candidate for vfd. jmd 00:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Some countries do define national animals, and although the exact definition may vary from country to country, there's no reason we can't have footnotes that explain for each entry why that animal is regarded as a national animal. This article should be targeted for expansion and improvement, not deletion. And see also list of national birds. —Lowellian (reply) 06:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and WTF is going on with the example of the Nepali national animal being a picture of a Holstein?

It says "cow"; there is a picture of a cow. All is well. Arctic Gnome 01:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

But it's not a cow that any Nepali will have ever seen. 86.29.111.71 (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a reference for the cow as Nepal's national animal, and someone else already obligingly changed the Holstein picture to one of a Brahman cow. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing many national animals

Sweden = the national mammal of Sweden is an Elk (latin: Cervus canadensis), and the national bird is the blackbird latin: Turdus merula

You forgot to provide a citation. The sources in the table doesn't mention these facts at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.119.138.214 (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Denmark = the national mammal is the Red Squirrel, the formor national bird is The Eurasian skylark (Alauda arvensis) but the current is the Mute Swan. the mythical animal is the Fenrir Wolf of Norse myth
Norway = has The white-throated dipper (Cinclus cinclus), as national animal.
Turkey = Wolf
Greenland = Polar Bear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.28.231 (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Scotland's national animal is a unicorn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.124.40 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Belgien (Ardennes) = has The Wild Boar as national animal (Latin: Sus scrofa)

It should be somewhat short. I mean, there could be hundreds of animals on this list. If you think they are important enough, put them down; if not, then don't. But don't complain about it. 180.200.155.4 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thailand = Elephant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.157.17 (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You forgot to provide a citation. --Yamla (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Slovakia = Chamois: R. r. rupicapra (Alpine chamois), R. r. tatrica (Tatra chamois) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.129.58 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You, too, forgot to provide a citation. --Yamla (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

British Bulldog?

italy america china japan'snational animal is not there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.6.165 (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough 19:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sub-state animals

I notice that you have the national animals for England, Scotland, and Wales in the list. If this list is including sub-sovereign political units, should it include the animals for each American state, each Australian state, and each Canadian province? Arctic Gnome 16:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

England, Scotland and Wales are countries, albeit in political union, which is somewhat different to being a state or a province.

England, Scotland and Wales share a common central government, share a seat at the UN, share a military, share an Olympic team, and I could go on. The term "country" as used in the UK refers to sub-state units. American states and Canadian provinces have equal or probably more sovereignty than do UK's "countries". --Arctic Gnome 23:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a little excessive. Note how this is National Animal, not 'state' or 'governmental' animal. England, Scotland and Wales are nations, and have designated animals to represent themselves, from before the union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.85.117 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; The UK also shares a "common" "central", "higher" Govt. with other countries - in the EU.

And I'm pretty sure it depends which subject it comes to when talking about States/Provonces/Countries having more or less sovereignty than those of other nations, especially when it comes to Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

England, Wales and Scotland are the same as Texas and whatever. Good luck on the Russian federal subjects! :D

No, they're not. It's nation, not state. Nation is a matter of perception. Most Texans percieve themselves as Americans, and historically, Texas' existence as a separate state is tiny, not to mention they requested annexation. One could make the case that England and Wales are infact part of the same nation (i.e., two different faces of the same nation, one the Celtic one and the other its Germanic alter-ego), but one could debate the other way too. Nonetheless, the UK itself designates its subdivisions as nations, so it ends there, they are nations, not subnations (subnations would be like Transylvania within Romania, fyi). As for Russian federal subjects, that's going even further away from the case of Texas. Sure, they don't have much autonomy at all in reality, despite whatever bs promises the Kremlin makes on this issue. But Russian occupation of, say, Ichkeria or Circassia or Tuva, has a sarcastically ancient history, dating back to the 19th century (in the case of Tuva, the 20th century). Worse, these nations have long histories highly separate from Russia, and almost no one belonging to them percieves themselves as even remotely Russian (compare that to Ukraine or Belarus, which despite UN-recognition, still have segments of the population percieving themselves as a subdivision of Russians, and I'm not even talking about diasporae). It would be like telling Vietnamese people they are "French". It just isn't the case.-Yalens (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad example with the Olympics - people from Northern Ireland can compete under either the British or Irish flag. You just have to accept that the nations of the British Isles have a rather unique status - for instance they compete as separate nations in many international sporting events (football, rugby, cricket, multievents at the Commonwealth Games etc) and the national symbols are much more embedded than many "British" symbols which only go back three centuries or less. 86.29.111.71 (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really denying that, it applies elsewhere too. But that Scotland or Catalonia are nations (as opposed to Texas) - those not recognized as nations by the United Nations but which still are, in the sense of the word, nations- should not be denied a place on the list if they have an animal. Furthermore, one should differentiate things like Scotland from things like, say, the Khevsurs in Georgia. The Khevsurs are actually a sub-nation of Georgia, an ethnic variant from our typical Georgian, but Georgian nonetheless. The UK, rather is a federation of nations (England, Scotland and so on) that is at a higher level than Georgia. Scotland and England are nations in the sense that Georgia is.--Yalens (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the intention of the comment "The UK also shares a "common" "central", "higher" Govt. with other countries - in the EU." To my mind, we need to bear in mind accepted terminology. A country and a nation are, surely, virtually synonomous. The EU is neither a country nor a nation. The EU essentially exists by consensus. It has not, and hopefully never will, reach the status of a federation. Sub-national entities would consist of, for example, UK counties, US states and Canadian provinces. Please let us avoid politics. Agent0060 15:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the definition of nation that our own wiki gives is "A nation is a grouping of people who share common history, culture, language and ethnic origin, often possessing or seeking its own government". Nation is not a matter of UN recognition, its a matter of personal feeling of a large number of people, who also have this feeling backed up by any of a number of factors including history, language, culture, geography and so on. US states are, for the most part, not nations, as they despite having a comparable amount of autonomy to Scotland within the UK, they lack distinctive cultures/languages (unless we count native tribes within the US, they are nations as they view themselves as such, and fulfill the other factors on the list), long histories (or in the case of most, they have no history at all), and so on. Perhaps the southern US (i.e. the former confederacy) could form a semi-nation, as a small portion of the population views itself as such and they have a distinctive dialect. That differs hugely, from say, Kurdistan or Chechnya/Ichkeria, where the population overwhelmingly views itself not only as Kurdish/Chechen nationally but also as specifically non-Turkish/non-Russian/etc, and there lakc of status in the UN is simply due to realpolitik and political maneuvering. The constituent nations of the UK fall somewhere in between, but the general accepted view is that Scotland and England (and the others) are nations in a confederation with each other. The fact that the name of the country is the United Kingdom goes a long way to emphasize the nationhood of both England and Scotland as well. A country is a patch of land. A nation is a feeling of belonging held by a large group. There is a huge difference, and its not just politics, its the definition of the word nation. --Yalens (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(the following message was originally placed on Smarkflea's talk page)I wanted to talk to you about this (we already talked somewhat on the talk page, but ah well).

I would still think that not only Ichkeria would still belong on the National Animals page for a couple of reasons:

1. Specifically to Ichkeria, the Chechens' reverence for the wolf as the symbol of the nation, even more important than the flag, is a good case of clearly having a national animal.

2. Your argument confuses "nation" with "state" (that you are American probably doesn't help here, since Americans refer to their provinces as "states"). The latter includes Monaco and Andorra, but not Catalonia, Scotland, Ichkeria, Tibet, etc. The former includes Catalonia, Scotland, Ichkeria, Tibet, South Sudan and so on, but not Andorra and Monaco.

3. To add to the second, in many cases the main group within the state which these stateless nations reside often actually refers to them as nations. In the case of Scotland and Wales, they are referred to as being different "home nations" from England, and the United Kingdom is seen as a union between different nations. In the Russian Federation, certain ethnic minorities are referred to as being separate nations (or "nationalities", if you prefer that translation), and have territorial units referred to as "Republics". In addition, Russian academics (including the overwhelming majority- Russians who oppose secession of minorities) even refer to Chechens as being a separate nation (Arutionov being a good example, among others) frequently, and some Russians will even get angry (at least, some have in my experience) if you call certain parts of the Russian Federation- which, like the UK or Spain, is seen as a Federation of different nations. Hence, even the concept of Scotland and Ichkeria/Chechnya as lacking recognition as nations is questionable.

4. At its current state, the page has some double standards. The Isle of Man is included, but Catalonia, Scotland and Ichkeria or not.

5. The current state of the page (and its counterpart, sub-national animals) confuses "national minority" with "subnation". A subnation is (or at least should be considered) a subdivision of the nation rather than a nation that shares its state (Texas is a subnation, Scotland and England are nations).

To be honest, my reason for posting here is mainly because the Chechen wolf phenomenon is such a classic case of national animal reverence (perhaps one of the best cases), but I also feel, especially after posting this (sorry its so long) that we should develop a policy with regard to this sort of thing (i.e. one that makes a distinction between national subgroups and stateless nations).--Yalens (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

By "national animal", I take it to mean the animal for an independent state, not for a nationality. No country recognizes Ichkeria, so it shouldn't be here. I do agree things like Scotland shouldn't be here...Smarkflea (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could have a page of "state animals" then, couldn't we? wait a second, I think we merged a page like that or something...--Yalens (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I would take that to be List of sub-national animals. I'd put it under Russia, but it should prob. be under sub-heading "Chechnya" since there is no recognized entity of Ichkeria...Smarkflea (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that the wolf was never recognized (to my knowledge) as the animal of the Republic of Chechnya(i.e. the gov't allied to Moscow).(of course, this touches on another issue, that many of the animals here are culturally recognized, but not necessarily so by the state governments that govern these nations) --Yalens (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

National Animal of Sri Lanka

In this page , the national animal of Sri Lanka is mentioned as LION . The constitution of Sri Lanka doesa not classify any animal as National Animal i.e no National Animal in Sri Lanka. A National animal is an animal which is found in the country and is a symbol of pride for all the citizens of the country . Lion is a symbol of pride for all the Sinhala speaking population of the nation , but is not found in the Island. So Lion cannot be the National animal of the Sri Lanka.

It does appear on the Sri Lankan flag, however. Does this qualify? JackofOz 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As a note, the national animal doesn't have to be from the country or, infact, even a real animal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.146.57 (talk) 18:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Photographs

We should really try to get illustrative photographs for the Scottish unicorn and Welsh dragon. :-P QuartierLatin1968 23:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

More on photographs

What we have is very good. But what I'd like even more is photos depicting the animals as they actually appear on national logos, symbols, flags, etc, rather than photos of actual live animals. Or both. Any takers? JackofOz 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cambodia

The picture isn't of a kouprey. faithless (^speak) 02:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The generic Ox picture was the closest thing I could find within the Commons. Since the animal is severly endangered, photos are scarce. Please feel free to add your own. Reason turns rancid 19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the Israeli national animal from cobra to a Mountain Gazelle. gazelle was always the national animal of israel, even in yhe talmood the land of israel named "the land of the gazzle" (ארץ הצבי). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.135.64 (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Horse

I haven't heard of that one, and I live here (Canada). Sable Island horses for the Maritimes perhaps, but that's regional as opposed to national. Comments? Dolorous Bob (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the website linked to in this article as a reference, the Canadian horse is not the national animal of Canada, but rather the "national horse". I think that the national animal of Canada remains the beaver. 142.203.1.9 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Double-headed eagle

The double-headed eagle is employed as a national symbol by Russia and several other states. It was historically used by such noteworthy countries as Austria-Hungary, the Holy Roman Empire, and Byzantium. It was and still is very prominently featured on a wide array of things, from political cartoons to Olympic uniforms. It would make much sense to include them in the table, but the question is, should we consider the double-headed eagle a national animal along the lines of the unicorn and the dragon? There are several sculptures depicting such eagles, but unlike unicorns and dragons, they are rarely presented as real animals. They certainly aren't part of any real folklore and it simply is strange to imagine them as living beings. Any thoughts on that subject? --Humanophage (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a two-headed sheep, and a two-headed snake, but no two-headed eagle.Eregli bob (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sub-national animals: Keep or remove?

User:CambridgeBayWeather removed the sub-national section, citing list size; I have restored it pending discussion. I'm not sure what is meant by that; the article size is fine. Is the list too long with the sub-nationals? Discuss. Lockesdonkey (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah sorry that was an error and referred to another list that was too big. By the way you didn't restore all of the sub-nationals, you missed things like the military icon of the Pakistan Air Force and other sub-nationals that were part of the main part of the article. The sub-national section removal should have been "Remove all sub-national as they are not national animals as per the title of this article". If the list is to be for both national and sub-national then a seperate article List of national and sub-national animals needs creating and this can comply with the title of national animals. Currently the list is not overly long but the continual adding of of sub-nationals will make the list over large. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the request for a third opinion as there doesn't appear to be an active dispute. If I'm in error and you would like an opinion, please let me know. Thanks. Brad 06:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this. According to the relevant Move page, User:CambridgeBayWeather moved the content of the National animals article here as the sub-national section. So why is the National animals article still there?

Agent0060 14:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I should have added - keep this sub-national section but get rid of the National animals article as it appears to replicate the main head of this article.

Agent0060 15:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Macaw?

Where did you get that the macaw is the Brazilian national Animal? The brazilian national bird is the Jabiru or tuiuiu; the national animal is the jaguar. seems that this whole page was pulled out of someone's head, without any real research or knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.17.158 (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the name of the country Macedonia to FYROM. There is no such country as Macedonia, just FYROM or Republic of Macedonia as is its constitutional name, and Macedonia, a region of Greece. If someone else changes it, he should use either FYROM or Republic of Macedonia. Alfadog777 (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragon?

I missed that National Geographics special. Should mythical/supernatural/scifi beings be allowed under the title of "animals"?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.141.8 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

EDIT WARS

Instead of fighting an edit war, post your thoughts here, instead of simply reverting it every time.Alfadog777 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're vandalising the page; expect to be blocked if you continue. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Your actions are well known and as far as I know, monitored. I will give it a rest, it is a subject of lesser importance. I hope you will find that being an admin is more about responsibility and less about power, but the Arbs will decide anyway. Regards Alfadog777 (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Really?

Seriously, somebody go through and change things like Dragons and Unicorns.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goblineat4 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Bundesadler = Black Eagle?

"The Black Eagle breeds in tropical Asia." In my oppinion, the german Bundesadler / Reichsadler does not refer to any living animal. But nevertheless, sometimes the Golden Eagle or the White-tailed Eagle is assert to be the national animal of Germany.

Greetings from Germany! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.199.201.158 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

german Bundesadler is an unspecified eagle more a national symbol than a specified animal

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswappen_Deutschlands http://www.abendblatt.de/ratgeber/wissen/umwelt/article577264/Bundesadler-Welcher-Vogel-stand-beim-Wappentier-Modell.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.143.58 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove portuguese animal national symbol

I'm portuguese and I can assure that Portugal and portuguese people don't have any tradition or legal definition of an animal national symbol.

And all possible criteria of selection this article have fail in the case of Portugal:

a)Portuguese constitution defines the national symbols and don't include animals, b)The portuguese coat of arms doesn't have, today or during it's 600 years any animal, c)The portuguese territory doesn't have any endimec animal (the endimec animals like Iberian Linx are shared with Spain ou restricted to parts of portuguese territory)

Worst, as portuguese I find it abusive to mencion the Barcelos Cock here described because it is simply a piece of handcraftshif from a town - Barcelos - in the north of Portugal, with much tourist acceptance, but which is not representative of Portugal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portucalense (talk • contribs) 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.179.61 (talk)

I agree. It's not a national symbol, but a regional one. Portugal has many regional symbols, but that doesn't make them "national". Even the "eagle", the "lion", even the "dragon" for sport reasons, are much more mentioned everyday than the rooster. --Good Hope Phanta (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

We have a citation that this is the national symbol of Portugal. If you have a reliable source indicating otherwise, I'd be more than happy to remove it. --Yamla (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a poor citation nonetheless. Let's see if i can explain. It's not the national symbol, it's one symbol, pertaining to one area. The legend itself belongs to the northwest of Portugal and Galicia, a medieval tradition in the area probably related to the pilgrimage to Santiago... otherwise, it's nothing but an invention made by local pottery workers in Barcelos around the early 20th century, probably a little earlier. But in the end it became nothing but a touristic recreation made up in the 1930's by the dictatorship, a local piece turned into something else; eventually something with cultural meaning turned into something nowadays completely empty, just an object. Actually even the present image is quite recent, about 50 years old. There's nothing mythical of the rooster itself as a national animal symbol. It's not a "national animal", in the sense it doesn't mean anything national, therefore it's not a national representation (only if it's kitsch or marketing). Like i said before, there are plenty of figurative symbolic animals in Portugal, used and written everyday, like the Lion, Eagle, Dragon, even the Elephant as the symbol of the Zoo, which is known by everybody. Choosing the rooster as a "national symbol" is eventually just a quite recent touristic thing, without any meaning, let alone one "mythological". --Good Hope Phanta (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, not truth. We need a citation. --Yamla (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, but a poor source does not create a national symbol for a country. Portugal has no official national animal - and sources are not created around what does not exist. Portugal has not landed a man on Jupiter's moons, either. Find me a source to prove that one... Scr★pIron^IV 13:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious why you consider ABC News as not a reliable source. It's generally considered so elsewhere. Maybe I'm missing something here. If we had a reliable source (and I understand you don't consider that citation from ABC News as reliable, but stick with me) that Portugal had landed a man on one of Jupiter's moons, that would be sufficient to add that information to the article and to resist its removal, as per WP:TRUTH. That said, I'm no longer contesting the removal of this sourced information, as I expect you have good reason to mistrust the citation. --Yamla (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a tourism puff piece in the Lifestyle section of ABC News describes it as a national symbol. It is a common misconception, one that was unfortunately repeated by a reporter once, who failed to fact check a trivial piece. Trouble is, while the image is ubiquitous in souvenir shops, that does not make it the National Animal. Portugal does not have one. Governments determine national symbology, adopt state birds, flowers, animal, flags, colors... And the government of Portugal has not done so. But nobody reports on trivial or obscure things that have not happened. Scr★pIron^IV 16:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding my concern. See WP:TRUTH. ABC News may be wrong, but that is not relevant so long as they meet the criteria outlined in WP:RS. Again, it's not sufficient for you to argue that the article was wrong. You have to argue that it fails WP:RS, which it may very well do. That page states, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis." You seem to be arguing that we should accept nothing from ABC News in the Lifestyle section, anywhere on Wikipedia. Is that correct? Or are you just stating we shouldn't accept that single article, because it is wrong? --Yamla (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

From WP:TRUTH:

"Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes from time to time, such as misspelling a name or getting some detail wrong. Such mistakes, when found, should be ignored, and not be employed to describe a non-existent dispute." We ignore this source because is is disputed, that it is unsupported in other reliable sources, and it is making a very specific claim that is not verifiable elsewhere.

"To know where we have a dispute and where a simple mistake, consider whenever the author is really an expert on the topic (and not an expert on another topic, making a brief reference to something beyond his area of expertise), or if the text that breaks the mainstream knowledge is provided on purpose or as a mere passing-by comment." The author is not a recognized expert on symbology, and contradicts the mainstream knowledge (as offered by those who actually live in the culture in question) that it is a fallacy.

Per WP:TRUTH this information should not be included within the article until a recognized expert in the field makes such a statement. Scr★pIron^IV 18:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

A further claim made in this article is that the rooster is "holy" which is also completely unsupported elsewhere. The Galician who was to be hanged was described in the legends as holy, but not the rooster. Further indications that the specific author of this puff piece was thoroughly unfamiliar with the topic. The Wikipedia article on this emblem describes it as such: "The Rooster of Barcelos (Portuguese, "Galo de Barcelos") is one of the most common emblems of Portugal." It states that specifically because that is the consensus of reliable sources on the topic. Scr★pIron^IV 18:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you for taking the time to debate with me. You have convinced me. --Yamla (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

And thank you for caring about it, and supporting sources. I was on the fence about this one for a couple of days, myself. It gave me a chance to learn something - and have a better understanding of WP:TRUTH. Scr★pIron^IV 19:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

ABC

surely, alphabetically, NZ comes before Nigeria, Nicaragua and Norway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.243.14 (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Personally, I think New doesn't matter in a country name, so NZ is in the Z's. -67.211.155.229 (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

God, I hope you are just trolling. So New York begins with a Y then?...

After reading this little byplay I went through and ABC'd the list. Quite a few of them were out of place. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sri lanka National Animal

I do not think National animal of Sri Lanka is lion. There are no wild lions in Sri Lanka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.112.127 (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no lions in Scotland or England either, but both use the lion as a symbol. The trouble is this list is trying to combine two (even three) different concepts. There's the European idea of animals as symbols used in heraldry - such as the Welsh dragon or the Habsburg double-headed eagle - and there's the New World idea of an official national animal/bird etc. In some ways the latter is an attempt to manufacture a local heraldry, although in the former British dominions it may have more in common with Scottish clan plant badges. But the idea of the state nominating an offical animal/reptile etc is rather alien to Europeans. Then there's the unofficial political representations, like the Russian bear and British bulldog which are a different thing again. Personally I'm happy taking a fairly broad approach, but if you were to take a narrow definition of "defined by government" national animals then you would have to strike out most of the European countries I'd guess. Certainly I'm not aware of the robin, fox and deer having any official status in the UK, but if you asked any Welshman what his national animal was he would always say the dragon, imaginary or not! 86.29.111.71 (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Greece

Judging for the entries for Greece, where there is no such notion as "national animal" and notes like the above, I guess that this list has very serious problems. --FocalPoint (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Ι'm taking down the Greek entry. It has two citations, one of which concedes that the Phoenix is not a Greek national animal. As a matter of fact, as you correctly state, there is no notion of a "national animal" in Greece. Ancient Athens had the owl as a symbol, but as far as modern Greece goes, no such symbol exists. The 1967-1974 dictatorship chose the Phoenix as its regime emblem (and the emblem of country in general, as dictatorial regimes rarely distinguish between the two), and nowadays the poor mythical Phoenix is detested in Greece by association, as a symbol of that 7-year long fascist regime. Other than that, the Phoenix has rarely ever been used before or after (it was only on the Greek minted coin for a few short years in the 1820s, but very soon it was replaced with drachma). No notion of a "national animal" whatsoever. 46.12.109.232 (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Why hasn't it been merged yet?

National animals I don't know how to do a merge, especially since both articles ues tables... --Dara (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also List of national birds which could go in. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Merging the two seems absolutely logical! The contence is practically identical... (89.132.137.125 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Gabor)

Yes, they should be merged. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I say merge, if you compare the two pages, they are almost identical, except maybe content differences and the fact that National Animals orders by continent... If merge happens, it's a guarantee that it will be into National animals, not vice versa. --67.211.155.229 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Guatemala's National Animal is Correct

This article gathers more attention than you think. Many countries do have a National Animal and respect them a lot. It is a crime to even hurt a Quetzal in Guatemala. Our currency is 'Quetzales' and that says a lot too. It will be nice if someone make time to fix this.

200.49.163.4 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC) J. Corzo

US: bison

I removed the American bison from the US symbols. I could not find any refs for it, although I added a ref for the bald eagle. I was puzzled as to how the bison got onto the list in the first place: while its image made it onto a coin, it has never been a symbol of the US as a whole. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the American Bison again on 2016-05-09. While proposed as the national animal, it has not been signed into law. You can track the status of this at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2032 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.245.80 (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Slovenian dragon filed under Armenia

Hi, there is a mistake in this article, Ljubljana dragon (Ljubljana is the capital of Slovenia) is filed under Armenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.234.207 (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• This dragon is the first pictured in the dragon article, and they just used that for Armenia. Smarkflea (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This list needs a definition of "National Animal"

This article desperately needs a lede section to explain in more detail exactly what merits inclusion in the list. It has no explanatory remarks whatsoever, and consequently the list has become a grab-bag of many different kinds of animals. There are some entries which are referenced specifically as "national animal"; there are some which are more narrowly defined, like "national reptile", "national marine mammal", etc.; there are national birds, even though a List of national birds exists; there are animals (and fantasy creatures) from coats of arms; and there are even popular national caricatures like the Gallic rooster and British bulldog. Personally I would prefer to keep this list to official entries, i.e. real, indigenous animal species that have been given legally binding protected status and officially declared a "national animal" by a governing body. At the same time, it seems to me that the wealth of information gathered here should not be discarded. So should the article just state upfront all the different types of "national animals" it admits? Or should this list get divided into List of national reptiles, List of animals on coats of arms, etc.? Whatever inclusion policy is employed needs to be described adequately in the lede. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think there's a lot of redundancy with this article and the List of national birds. I suggest either ditching this and having national mammal, reptile, bird, etc., or getting rid of the other national articles relating to animals and amalgamating them here... Smarkflea (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• How about adding a comment column. Some animals that are listed are animals included in the coat of arms, and other animals aren't actually the "national animal" in any way, just an animal associated with the country. E.g. Sweden does not have any national animal, but has one for each province. --Thenor (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Clarifying: some countries have "national animals" or "animal emblems" (not necessarily the same thing) designated by government. Some have animals appearing on other emblems (like flags or armory). Some kingdoms have animals appearing on the king's armory (not necessarily the same as the country's). Some have animals adopted by tourism boards, that have no official status. Finally, some are just associated with animal symbols that have no official status. These should not all be mixed together. In fact, I think only the first category should be listed here. 216.172.36.50 (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)cctimar

Singapore's National Animal is neither the crow, mynah nor stray cat.

Singapore's national animal is the Merlion. Singapore was named Singapura by Sang Nila Utama after he visited the fishing village which was named Temasek then and saw a creature with a lion's head and upper body and the lower body of a fish. The name implies Lion City : "Singa" - lion , "pura" - city. Singapura was later named Singapore after being founded by Sir Thomas Raffles.

• I'd prefer we only actually use official national animals and provide sources...Smarkflea (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The White-throated Dipper

...is the national bird of Norway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.214.48 (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Too many images? Consider page size/load times

This page contains well over 200 images. If I assume an average image size of 10KB (which is a rather conservative estimate), the page weighs in excess of 2 MB. I don't know if there are wikipedia rules regarding page size, but for anybody with a limited data plan or a mobile device which is not quite as powerful, this might be unexpected. Can I suggest whether all of the images are really needed? Shouldn't a link suffice? Sansmalrst (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the image sizes be reduced a bit as a way to solve the problem. A single find replace may be able to do the job. If people want to get a better idea of the image they can always click through.

Idyllic press (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If you examine the Suomi (fi) version of this page you can see that smaller images are more compact and adequate for the purpose.

Idyllic press (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Trash

Normally I'm an inclusionist, but pages like these temporarily transform me into a deletionist. "Unofficial national animals?" Says who!? One coherent source is needed for the full list otherwise this article should be trashed. I've never ever heard that neither lion nor moose should be the "national animal" of Sweden. I've never ever heard of "national animal" of Sweden, and I live here. For the very rest, how many wild lions are there in Sweden? Usually zero ones. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, I've read some little on the net. There seems to be no Swedish official national animal. The Swedish hunters want to elect the moose, but they're in bad popular reputation after some irresponsible wolf hunting criticized by the EU commission and folk storms, and so they're not likely to get any popular support. No official reaction. The allegation that lion would be a Swedish official national animal is of course false, ridiculous and stupid. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

We could start by removing the ones that don't have a source. Surely, if an animal is in some sense a representative for an entire country, it's not hard to get a source which says so... bobrayner (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The lion may be included because I think it's on the royal standard or something, though I personally wouldn't consider that a national animal unless it were proclaimed in law... Smarkflea (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no official national animal of Sweden and it's difficult to find a reliable source on the inexistence of one, however it's surely impossible to find an official source of its existence. Each and every region has its own, but they're not national animals. Xertoz (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

And the sources for national animal and bird of Sweden doesn't mention anything about national animals at all. Besides, national bird isn't official, but two organisations have held votes and named the winner national bird - as opposed to national Animal, where I can't even find a competition to even suggest it. It's propably a de facto symbol of Sweden, at least for Germans, but not official in any capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.119.138.214 (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of national animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120314120902/http://www.gov.lk/gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&lang=en to http://www.gov.lk/gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of national animals. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150402090437/http://www.hanmoto.com/diary/2004/11/02/196/ to http://www.hanmoto.com/diary/2004/11/02/196/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).