Talk:List of mammals of Turkey

Bubalus bubalis
Is there any reason I should not add this water buffalo into the article?

Or is this list not supposed to include domestic and feral animals? If so maybe the word "wild" should be inserted in the first sentence which currently reads "This is a list of the mammal species recorded in Turkey." Chidgk1 (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. :All the other 'List of mammals of ..' contain only wildlife but not domestic / livestock species. But in none of these lists is the term 'wild' mentioned explicitly. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Should mammals which are no longer wild in Turkey be in the list?
If so the word "occurring" in the first sentence needs to be changed and a decision needs to be made how far back in time to go. If not why is "EX" in the table? And what about mammals which are extinct in Turkey but not elsewhere? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * These Lists of mammals of .. do usually not contain prehistoric mammals. And when a species does not occur any longer in a country, I remove this from the country's list. But since other editors handle this issue differently, there seems not to be a consensus. Like e.g. Asiatic lion is still alive in India, but to add it with an EX in the Turkey list, would imply that it is extinct everywhere. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The EX is in the table, because this is an IUCN Red List criteria. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If you guys could come to a consensus for this article what date the cutoff point is it could be put in the lead and/or a FAQ here to avoid people doing extra work adding and deleting in future.Chidgk1 (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Chidgk1: I agree that we need to find a consensus !! And propose to add a subheading titled 'Extirpated' and list all those species in this section that are not present in the respective country any more. What do you think? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Good idea. And the lead could perhaps say "occurring in historical times"?
 * Exactly! I just checked the IUCN RL for Turkey : this list contains lion, tiger, Eurasian beaver, Asiatic wild ass + Persian fallow deer. If the respective RL account provides info about year of last record, we can this here too. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how far back extinct animals should go on this list - can you clarify? As I understand it "history" in the lead means writing at the time the animal existed (e.g. are aurochs mentioned in Hittite language) rather than cave paintings. If there is a historical record of aurochs please could you cite it. I don't expect you to find a consensus for every article - - just this one. To avoid continual additions and reverts could you possibly write a FAQ at the top of the talk page to explain whatever consensus you have about how far back in time extinct animals go? Maybe you want to go back beyond written history? If so how far? To dinosaurs or beyond? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that aurochs shouldn't be in THIS list, as Turkey is not explicitly mentioned in the iucn rl account, but By the 13th century, the aurochs' range was restricted to Poland, Lithuania, Moldova, Transylvania and East Prussia. BTW: Ddum5347 has been blocked indefinitely. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This record in Thrace dates to ~2100 years ago. But if you assume cut-off date at 1500 AD, i.e. ~500 years ago, then it still shouldn't be in this list, imo. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * At the moment the lead says "history" which I take to mean contemporary written records. I think it is good to remind people of animals which were probably driven to extinction by people. But if you want to change it to a fixed date feel free. For info the Turkish article has no guideline as far as I can tell and includes lions, tigers and Asian elephants but not aurochs. Which is odd as I thought there were only war elephants in history not wild. - any thoughts?


 * I am extremely sorry for including the aurochs at each article, i should have understood that the aurochs which is a wild ancestor of the domestic cow went extinct way earlier and that it should not be included. So i am going to do is remove the aurochs at each article that i mistakenly included. So once again, i apologize for this one and i will never do it again.--Animalworlds314 (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No probs - you were not very wrong - it was debatable - have a nice day Chidgk1 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if it was debatable, I strongly recommend that IF you add new species to any List of mammals .. [or other orders] of [countries], then also provide a WP:RS for the historical or present occurrence of that species in the resp. country. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction
The current IUCN RL shows 150 extant mammals in Turkey + 7 with presence uncertain. So quite a few more than announced in the lead of this page. This lead was written perhaps 20 years ago without being updated? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Cut off point
I think a good cut off point for extirpated mammals would be anytime in the last 150 years (i.e. after 1850 or so). This would make them relatively recent extinctions, so that things like aurochs and cave lions are counted, for instance. Thoughts? Ddum5347 (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of mammals of Turkey
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of mammals of Turkey's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bbc": From Goitered gazelle:  From Common shrew:  From Aurochs:  

Reference named "Nader_al1989": From Asiatic lion:  From Asiatic cheetah:  

Reference named "Geptner1972": From Brown bear: Geptner, V. G., Sludskii, A. A. (1972). Mlekopitaiuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Vysšaia Škola, Moskva. (In Russian; English translation: Heptner, V. G.; Sludskii, A. A.; Bannikov, A. G.; (1992). Mammals of the Soviet Union. Volume II, Part 2: Carnivora (Hyaenas and Cats). Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation, Washington DC). pp. 95–202.</li> <li>From Caspian tiger: </li> <li>From Asiatic cheetah: </li> <li>From Jungle cat: </li> <li>From Felidae: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you AnomieBOT, I checked through the list and the results are below:
 * Reference named "bbc":
 * None of those are a good fit. Removed reference.
 * Reference named "Nader_al1989":
 * None of those are a good fit. Removed reference.
 * Reference named "Geptner1972":
 * None of those are a good fit. Removed reference.
 * Thank you, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 03:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Fallow deer?
I am not an expert but Persian fallow deer and

https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/6232/97672550#geographic-range

say extinct in Turkey.Chidgk1 (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes!! That's why I removed fallow deer, which is anyway a different species that never occurred in Turkey but is native to western Europe only. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. To my knowledge, the evidence for Persian fallow deer in Turkey (Anatolia) is somewhat problematic. It is only known palaeontologically from the SE, and the fossils show both the Persian as well as the nominate phenotypes (based on antler shapes) -a hybrid population at the site is suspected. We are talking about Neolithic fauna though, you could then also add many more species to these lists! Moreover, the nominate fallow deer is the taxon found throughout Anatolia in historic times, and, according to this paper, is still extant (although if this population is truly 'wild'...). Leo Breman (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Beaver?
https://www.cnnturk.com/yasam/turkiyede-nesli-tukenmekte-olan-hayvanlar claimed they were here in 2018

but https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989420302456 said none in 2019.

So is CNN Turk an unreliable source or were they extirpated between the dates of the 2 sources?

Chidgk1 (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See IUCN RL account at https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/4007/115067136#geographic-range dating to 2016. This is certainly more reliable than an article in a newspaper. IF that article relies on a peer-reviewed publication, then lets find it. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

IUCN Red List
In the lead of each and every country list of mammals, the IUCN Red List is unmistakably introduced as reference for the status of species in the respective country. At present, neither moose nor cheetah are listed as having occurred and been extirpated in Turkey. I therefore removed both from this country list. If anybody is of the opinion that the IUCN Red List assessors made a mistake, then this encyclopedia is not the place to doubt or override their assessments. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

-- This is the right place to do so, considering the fact that the sources that contradict the IUCN's statements are reliable; they are not good faith edits. Ddum5347 (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * would you please comment ? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * do you know whether these species are listed as being extirpated on Turkey's National Red List or Red Book? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheetah in Turkey?
Kryštufek & Vohralík (2001) about insectivores in Turkey and Cyprus indeed stated that "During the 19th century, Turkey evidently lost at least four mammals: the cheetah Acinony jubatus .. (Harper, 1945)" on page 31. The source referenced by these authors -- Harper, 1945 Extinct and vanishing mammals of the Old World -- did however NOT list Turkey as a historic cheetah range country : see https://archive.org/details/extinctvanishing00harprich/page/284/mode/2up and previous pages in this book. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheetah again
The source for the cheetah being present in Turkey is not an IUCN assessment, but it is still a WP:RS, and similar to the sources used for the cheetah and other large predators in the "list of mammals of" pages for the Caucasus nations. I think should be consistent; either remove all non-IUCN sources from these lists, or allow them. Monserrrr (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The reliability of this book is doubtful, since Turkey is NOT listed in the cheetah IUCN Red List among the countries, where it is extinct. Interestingly, a blocked user or their sockpuppet added this same ref more than a year ago and also argued that this is reliable. – BhagyaMani (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the IUCN should remain the primary source. I'll investigate to see if any other sources back this up. Monserrrr (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have requested a quote from the book for its use in the Asiatic cheetah article. I read that in Ottoman times the sultans had to import them as they were not in the country. But https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/poaching-isnt-rare-cheetahs-only-problem-180962808/ mentions them in passing. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good read. Think you should add it. Monserrrr (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've found these sources:, , , . Some of these seem reliable, others not so much. Monserrrr (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

If anyone would like a third opinion please ask
Not quite sure why extinct mammals seem to create more arguments on this article than live ones, but as we are all trying to do our best for the animals if anyone is annoyed by another person's edit feel free to ask me for a (non-expert) third opinion if you think that might help take the heat away. If I am slow to reply I can say it was a deliberate calming measure - ha ha. Or I could just say the answer is to rewild and see if I can stir up rewilding arguments instead of editing arguments. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Should invasive species be included?
Should we include coypu? As usual foreigners are blamed - apparently they migrated from Bulgaria https://www.aksam.com.tr/gunes/anavatani-guney-amerika-edirnede-su-maymunu-istilasi/haber-1223636 Chidgk1 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article starts out with "This list shows the IUCN Red List status of the 150 wild mammal fauna of Turkey", so I'd say that if they are on the IUCN Red List for Turkey, they should be included. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 17:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Turkey is not listed among the countries where it was introduced on resp. IUCN RL. So I would not add it to this page. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am confused - it was not introduced - it invaded under its own power. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ^Still counts as introduced. Monserrrr (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Turkey is listed in the distribution at http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/speciesname/Myocastor+coypus and they are included in Turkish Wikipedia. So I think they should be included as the evidence is conclusive. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)