This article is a 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
State consistently whether extinction is or isn't defined to include pseudoextinction
Is pseudoextinction a special case of extinction, or are they mutually-exclusive in a given case?
The pseudoextinction section suggests the former as it begins with:
Descendants may or may not exist for extinct species.
Which implies that a pseudoextinct species (which by definition must have existing descendants) can indeed be considered extinct.
But, inconsistent with that, there are phrases elsewhere that appear to assume that a species can be pseudoextinct and not be considered extinct:
"pseudoextinct, rather than extinct"
"Pinpointing the extinction (or pseudoextinction)"
So which is it: is a pseudoextinct species also considered extinct, or not, or is the answer controversial, or, worse yet, context-dependent? The word pseudoextinct can be read literally (or at least etymologically) as "falsely extinct", so how can it be that a "falsely extinct" species is also (truly) extinct? :-) But are there any good citations on one or both sides of this question?
Hi, this is my first time looking at this article. I noticed that humans are mentioned under the "causes" section although it seems somewhat unorganized. I think there should be a separate section devoted to human activities such as poaching. Poaching (and/or human activities) should have its own section I think. --Turn685 (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)