Talk:Lists of invasive species

Untitled

isn't the Starling an invasive bird of North America? from what i understand, the bird was introduced in the 19th century in central park, ny, by a group who wanted to introduce into the new world every old world species mentioned by shakespeare.. Kingturtle 23:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about the other lists, but the list of North American invasives is far from complete. Also maybe a bit misleading? Some plants from one region of North America have become invasives in other regions (particularly regions separated by mountain ranges). Wouldn't listing by biome, rather than continent, be more useful? SB Johnny 14:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Reformat this list?

I was thinking that a good format for this list would be to list species by Region of Origin. This could be easily done by checking the individual pages and then making the correct adjustments. The region affected can still be listed but that should be on the side, in parenthesis. For example the Mexican Poppy is listed under Africa which I believe causes confusion. My format would be

North America

Plants

• Prickly pears (Opuntia)

Invasive in: Africa, Australia

or something along those lines. I believe that the region of origin is the most important part of this list.--Jonthecheet 04:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thats a really neat idea, it would make the page far more user friendly.--nixie 04:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I clarified the headings... it would be nice to annotate the list with region of origins, but I think the user will be more interested in the plants invasive in a particular region, rather than plants from a particular region that are invasive in other regions. SB Johnny 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that most people would be more interested in places that the species are invasive in, perhaps there could be a "list of invasive species by orgin" to go along with this one? Michael1115 (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Category deletion discussion

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Proposal withdrawn. MikeHobday 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Expansion from source

Someone might want to compare this article against [1] and add any species which are missing. -- Beland (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Hmm. Introduced by human action...to a region where it did not previously occur naturally...capable of establishing a breeding population in the new location...and becomes a pest in the new location, threatening the local biodiversity.

There is a species of African ape that matches all the above criteria and which has spread to every region of the world. Why isn't it on the list?

Tualha (Talk) 14:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait am I one of them? 2600:1012:B160:FCE1:2457:433C:AEDB:917C (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

suggestion for informal policy

i've recommended this policy for other lists, with success. it helps to avoid vandalism, which is particularly easily hidden in articles that are lists. the recommendation is this: for any list of notable X, if X doesn't have an article of its own on wikipedia, it should not be included in list of X. since lists themselves do not establish notability, and since most entries within articles that are lists tend not to include WP:RS citations, it's not a breach of policy to put in place this informal policy. it's simply too easy to create some reasonable yet obscure sounding entry that winds up sitting on the list as permanent vandalism. it's most pernicious in lists of notable people, but this list may already have bogus entries. thoughts? if there are no stringent objections, i'll start culling entries that have no associated article in a few days. note that many entries appear to be poorly created - for example, listing the latin name which links to a real article, but listing the common name as a redlink - one or the other should probably be a link, not both, unless there's a DAB page involved. Anastrophe (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul (Split?)

This list is mess. Inconsistent formatting, wikilinking, and use of common/scientific names. If no one opposes, I'm going to start cleaning it up by doing the following:

• Listing scientific name first, followed by any common names in parentheses
  • e.g., Solanum mauritianum (Bugweed)
• Alphabetizing species in individual sections by scientific name
• Not wikilinking both the scientific and common name, unless there are distinct articles for each (as with Bramble and Rubus)

If anyone has any different ideas, please mention them. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 03:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question. We should really have citations for each species in the article, but would it be overwhelming to have a footnote at the end of every single line? If so, how else do we cite this? SheepNotGoats (Talk) 03:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I think a reference for every species (hell, more than 1 would be great) is not only entirely appropriate but honestly necessary. Shrumster (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the gouping by-country needs to be reinstated. Just stating that a species is invasive "in Asia" can be highly misleading. For example, there are many mainland Asian species that are invasive in the Philippine islands which wouldn't be reflected in the list if groupings by country/ecoregion are removed. Shrumster (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the continent designation doesn't work. But we would to need to figure out how to break them down into smaller regions consistently. We obviously can't (and don't need to) list all 300 countries or whatever. Here's a drastic suggestion: completely do away with this article altogether and break it into 7 (or 6) separate articles for each continent (we already have some: Invasive species in Australia). This would allow for breaking each continent apart by whatever system makes the most sense in each case (country, ecoregion, state, etc.). This article has been around since 2004 so it may not be a popular idea, but frankly, a worldwide list of invasive species is really an impossible and kind of useless idea (no offense to whomever first created the article), since every species that is native somewhere could be invasive somewhere else, so theoretically this could just turn out to be a list of every species in the world :) SheepNotGoats (Talk) 14:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added the split template to the main page. If there is a consensus to split, I suppose this page would remain as a disambig to each continent page, or perhaps we could use it to list species that are considered invasive worldwide (e.g., ones that are invasive on at least 3 continents, or something). SheepNotGoats (Talk) 15:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely seems like a good idea to split it into separate articles for each continent. this one (list of invasive species) could be a disambiguation page. Michael1115 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

New Articles

Resolved

 – --Zink Dawg -- 00:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's my proposal for what the current article will be split into:

• List of invasive species in North America
• List of invasive species in South America
• List of invasive species in Europe
• List of invasive species in Asia
• List of invasive species in Africa
• List of invasive species in Australasia

Then we can decide how to break down each continent individually (we might list individual countries for North America, maybe only break down to regions for Europe, like the British Isles, Mediterranean, Scandinavia, etc.). Thoughts? SheepNotGoats (Talk) 16:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. The number of invasive species is so great that this is a real need. And, of course, species native to one place are the invasives in another. I mean, what native resident of, say, West Virginia would ever have thought that honeylocust would be a problem in Europe? And, of course, different plants are different problems even in regions of a continent. What's invasive in California is not necessarily at all relevant here in the eastern US. So let's split it! jaknouse (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for your input! What do you think of the names I used above? I figured splitting it into the continents would be a way to start, but I wasn't sure which name to use for Australia/Australasia/Oceania. Also, I just about had a nervous breakdown when I saw that List of introduced species exists too, but I guess we can worry about that one later. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 13:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

what about the north american great vampire eyed monkey insect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.69.153 (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)