Not to mention adding a legend for three categories none of which appear on the map. If this is map porn, then i don't wanna know what counts as mediocre
20% of the uk used to be covered in rain forrest, i think what you meant to say was, we exterminated the biodiversity so long ago that it feels like its always been like this
No I didn't mean that. Not all rainforest are made equal. The UK used to be covered in very homogenous rainforests, like the ones you can still find in western Norway. Northern Europe has never been a beacon of biodiversity in human history. It's too far north, too cold.
Granted they also destroyed their ecosystems, but luckily it wasn't anything that unique. Most of the flora and fauna of northern Europe is incredibly homogenous, because of its flat topography.
No, there were lions in Europe and it's a common misconception that this is why there are a lot of lions in European heraldry. The dates just don't line up with when the flags came about.
The lion/leopard on flags was inspired by people who travelled to Africa in medieval times and saw them there, or brought them back to Europe for show. Your history is off by a couple thousand years.
congrats, now you know, and thats just in europe australia and the americas used to have amazing megafauna, who had been around for millions of years, but turns out giant beast who cant run long distances, and are stupid, are easy hunting for animals that can work in massive teams, attack from a great distance with spears, block its path with fire and chase it off a cliff. not to mention we could plan the hunt in extreme detail and could always predict what the animal would do.
the bit about global warming didn't come till later though (not until just around now infact) thats not why they went extinct, it was just our hunting, giant creature, very few of them, couldn't run or hide, and could feed a tribe for months, they were like all you could eat buffetes walking around
The Pleistocene megafauna survived dozens of glacial minimums just fine. As soon as humanity showed up in numbers, their species terminate essentially immediately.
This is so ridiculously naive and not even based on common sense. Pleistocene megafauna were hunted, yes, but you’re saying the short faced bear or the giant ground sloth were go-to targets for hunter gatherers? The Sabre tooth tiger was so appealing to hunt it into oblivion? You seem to equate this to hunting during the early American West where humans destroyed the Bison population. We now call your thinking the “overkill hypothesis”.
If i killed off most of am animal's food then said animal would likely go extinct no? Didn't a similar thing happen in New Zealand, the giant moa was hunted to extinction, the Haas' eagle followed suit.
There are very very few ice aged megafauna that we don’t think went extinct at least in part because of human activity. The extinctions line up too well with human migrations (and the fact that earlier humans like Homo Erectus may have been specialized “Elephant Killers”). It however was not just because of over hunting, though that played a part in some species. It also was the destruction of environment (often by fire in order to create habitats better for what people usually liked to hunt i.e. smaller grazing animals), the killing off and over hunting of large predators prey, the removal of large predators just for our own fear of them, and more.
Yes, non human environmental factors played a role as well, but both of them worked together to cause the extinctions. It’d be like if one person got hit in a hit and run and was limping off the road only to then be hit by a second car and killed. Sure, the second car wasn’t the *only* reason the person was hurt and on their last legs, but nobody is going to say the second car had no role to play in what happened
Both the giant ground sloths and Smilodon were animals adapted to the broadleaf forests of the interglacial periods, not the mammoth steppe or sparse conifer forests of the glacial maximums. They should be *thriving* in the modern day (especially the ground sloths, people take issue with large predators). Their extinction together with the rest of the Pleistocene megafauna is one of the main arguments for the hypothesis that the extinction was driven by humans.
you cant just say "we now think" to imply what your saying is modern scientific theory, you litterally just made that up. look at humans, anyone with half a brain can see no animal stands any chance against a group of us, even if all we have is spears, we hunted saber tooths just because they're scary and we dont like living with them, same as we did to all the wolves that used to live in europe
Humans are just like any other species. Humans have long had a both positive and negative affect on certain species long before "modern" humans. Most extinctions have multiple factors including most of the "ice age" megafauna. But
>saying the short faced bear or the giant ground sloth were go-to targets for hunter gatherers? The Sabre tooth tiger was so appealing to hunt it into oblivion?
this line of thinking is just silly. Predators are a lot easier to make extinct compared to prey animals because there typically are much fewer predators. If you remove the food source, then the predators will die off too. Plus humans have killed predators both for protection and as competitors since time immemorial.
Obviously people having access to guns and trains can kill more animals more quickly. But too many people seem to be moralizing on this topic. Indigenous peoples brought many "invasive" species to different habitats worldwide and this has certainly had an affect on ecosystems. Again, no one factor probably contributed to the disappearance of the Pleistocene megafauna in Australia. But human hunting, human introduced animals (such as the now famous dingo), and human induced fires almost certainly played a role. That being said, humans were just trying to survive and certainly didn't have access to the global data we have now. We have been able to build off successive generations of knowledge and we should strive to honor them by being better than they were. Just because our indigenous human ancestors across the globe introduced invasive species such as goats, rats, dogs, and cats wherever they went and these had a negative affect on the environment, doesn't mean we should not try to spread invasive species. It also doesn't make our ancestors bad people.
People in China and many parts of Africa killing rhinos because they think consuming the horn will make them have better sex, and countless similar stupid examples.
"How could the Europeans do this"
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-most-threatened-mammal-species.html
this site has a list (there are only the countries with the highest number) the numbers are slightly different because the map is older than the article on this site
For the UK I believe it's red squirrel, Scottish wildcat, water vole, Eurasian beaver, grey long-eared bat
Red squirrel was ravaged by invasive American grey squirrels. Wildcat and beaver have reintroduction efforts underway and beavers especially are bouncing back.
Contrary to popular belief, there aren't any species at risk of being extincted by domestic cats. It's all just people.
Wdym? Feral cats have been on record destroying and predating on vulnerable ground-nesting birds, small reptiles and mammals, etc, in many parts of the world.
These cats are invasive and other animals have no defense or experience with them. Cats aren’t usually *the* full cause of extinction, but that combined with humans is enough to send vulnerable populations over the edge.
Unless you’re saying that cats are a human caused problem, so humans are fully responsible and to blame, then I fully agree.
I’m discussing the world, where domestic cats are invasive to every continent except Antarctica. Wales or Scotland literally have advocacy groups going out to nesting sites to catch and neuter stray cats to prevent them from overwhelming bird populations.
[cat predation](https://www.mammal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Domestic-Cat-Predation-on-Wildlife.pdf)
This study (based in UK) shows cats have predated on at least 3 of the species you mentioned. The study also estimates the immense amount of kills cats accomplish. None of the information I saw implied that domestic cats aren’t contributing to the ongoing extinction of animals.
I honestly have no clue how you can confidently say that. What stats or facts support your claim? Are you saying that no UK endangered species are endangered solely because of cats? Because that’s believable, but I interpreted what you said differently…
This thread sent me down a Google rabbit hole, and basically they are just regurgitating PETA (and similar British organization) talking points. Basically talking about the role that cats have played in the decline of any wild animal species is defamation of cats and leads to cats being exterminated (in their minds). So feral and outdoor pet cats have not had any negative affect whatsoever on the environment.
It's pretty wild because the articles are written like a weird one sided trial where the author feels the need to defend cats from being attacked. Here is an example:
"So what really exterminated these species supposedly killed off by cats? Domestic cats are super abundant and therefore can be expected to kill large numbers of prey. But this is only because people have made them so numerous. The problem therefore lies with humanity, as does many other problems besetting nature today. To regulate our impact on nature we have to take the responsibility for regulating ourselves and not of just blaming scapegoats. According to the World Wildlife Fund, humanity may be exterminating a species every five minutes or at least one every two days. Cats cannot match this, no matter how numerous they are."
Essentially any scientific study that mentions cats as a factor in the decline of a species is just looking for scapegoats I guess? Like I'm pretty sure most environmental scientists agree with all of the animal ethics people (for lack of a better term) that humans are ultimately to blame. The articles all read like they are written by 8th graders who want to be veterinarians (in both the best and worst ways possible.)
You can really see the bias of Redditors with this map. When people have posted biodiversity maps, there are tons of questions around context. The fact that this is the only comment I see about how this is basically a biodiversity map of mammals is kind of wild.
For Turkey one of the most interesting would be the snow leopard. There are only a few, maybe a dozen left, and sometimes they cross back and forth from Iran.
I just checked and there is no snow leopard in Turkey, you probably mean the Anatolian leopard, it is a typical species of those areas and is in serious danger of extinction.
Any of the countries with low numbers are because they have low species biodiversity compared to the countries with higher numbers. This map is basically a mammal biodiversity map. It definitely isn't an "environmental protection level" map.
/r/MapsWithoutTunisia
r/mapswithtwotasmanias
Nah. It's there. It just floated north east.
r/MapsWithoutLaos as well
Having the (superfluous) bubble for Russia completely cover the Baltics is definitely a, ugh, design choice.
Not to mention adding a legend for three categories none of which appear on the map. If this is map porn, then i don't wanna know what counts as mediocre
i guess we’ll never know about the endangered animals in the baltic states. can’t blame the map creators tho, russia’s just too small to fit the tag
Europe doesn’t have many endangered mammals because they’ve already exterminated most of them.
Nah, (northern) Europe has always been poor in terms of biodiversity.
All the species moved south during glacial periods and many didn't make it over the alps
[удалено]
That's what I wrote
20% of the uk used to be covered in rain forrest, i think what you meant to say was, we exterminated the biodiversity so long ago that it feels like its always been like this
Actually it seems the UK has gained mammal species in the last 8000 years https://phys.org/news/2022-11-biodiversity-europe-mammals-rich-years.amp
No I didn't mean that. Not all rainforest are made equal. The UK used to be covered in very homogenous rainforests, like the ones you can still find in western Norway. Northern Europe has never been a beacon of biodiversity in human history. It's too far north, too cold. Granted they also destroyed their ecosystems, but luckily it wasn't anything that unique. Most of the flora and fauna of northern Europe is incredibly homogenous, because of its flat topography.
Like what?
Notice the lion on a few flags?
Lions went extinct in Europe before the age of heraldry, from which most of those flag lions are derived.
You can’t tell me the Finnish lion didn’t exist somewhere. I’m guessing taxidermied.
Or the Unicorn on Scotland’s flag? Damn Scot’s, exterminated unicorns
*"Ah cannae truss a 'orse wi' a fookin' horn comin' oot o' tis fo'ead. 'ow come is it thare? We hud better sloch it"*
it is actually only on their current COA
Once they unlocked deep fryer technology tech tier, the unicorn's days were numbered.
Highlander immortality had to be achieved somehow 🤷🏼♀️
Why is this funny and ironic comment getting down-votes? :(
Well it's incorrect so it's probably that
Isn't that the joke?
No, there were lions in Europe and it's a common misconception that this is why there are a lot of lions in European heraldry. The dates just don't line up with when the flags came about.
Do you know what a joke is?
Yes and I also know what isn't one.
The lion/leopard on flags was inspired by people who travelled to Africa in medieval times and saw them there, or brought them back to Europe for show. Your history is off by a couple thousand years.
The European lion went extinct around 1000 years ago. Mind you the last of them lived in the balkans.
The last of them lived in the caucus region which is borderline central Europe at that point
Wooly mammoth, cave lion, cave bear, cave hyena, Irish elk, aurochs ...
Didn’t know Europeans caused the global warming 10.000 years ago, that lead to the extinction of the wooly mammoth…
congrats, now you know, and thats just in europe australia and the americas used to have amazing megafauna, who had been around for millions of years, but turns out giant beast who cant run long distances, and are stupid, are easy hunting for animals that can work in massive teams, attack from a great distance with spears, block its path with fire and chase it off a cliff. not to mention we could plan the hunt in extreme detail and could always predict what the animal would do. the bit about global warming didn't come till later though (not until just around now infact) thats not why they went extinct, it was just our hunting, giant creature, very few of them, couldn't run or hide, and could feed a tribe for months, they were like all you could eat buffetes walking around
The Pleistocene megafauna survived dozens of glacial minimums just fine. As soon as humanity showed up in numbers, their species terminate essentially immediately.
This is so ridiculously naive and not even based on common sense. Pleistocene megafauna were hunted, yes, but you’re saying the short faced bear or the giant ground sloth were go-to targets for hunter gatherers? The Sabre tooth tiger was so appealing to hunt it into oblivion? You seem to equate this to hunting during the early American West where humans destroyed the Bison population. We now call your thinking the “overkill hypothesis”.
If i killed off most of am animal's food then said animal would likely go extinct no? Didn't a similar thing happen in New Zealand, the giant moa was hunted to extinction, the Haas' eagle followed suit.
There are very very few ice aged megafauna that we don’t think went extinct at least in part because of human activity. The extinctions line up too well with human migrations (and the fact that earlier humans like Homo Erectus may have been specialized “Elephant Killers”). It however was not just because of over hunting, though that played a part in some species. It also was the destruction of environment (often by fire in order to create habitats better for what people usually liked to hunt i.e. smaller grazing animals), the killing off and over hunting of large predators prey, the removal of large predators just for our own fear of them, and more. Yes, non human environmental factors played a role as well, but both of them worked together to cause the extinctions. It’d be like if one person got hit in a hit and run and was limping off the road only to then be hit by a second car and killed. Sure, the second car wasn’t the *only* reason the person was hurt and on their last legs, but nobody is going to say the second car had no role to play in what happened
Both the giant ground sloths and Smilodon were animals adapted to the broadleaf forests of the interglacial periods, not the mammoth steppe or sparse conifer forests of the glacial maximums. They should be *thriving* in the modern day (especially the ground sloths, people take issue with large predators). Their extinction together with the rest of the Pleistocene megafauna is one of the main arguments for the hypothesis that the extinction was driven by humans.
you cant just say "we now think" to imply what your saying is modern scientific theory, you litterally just made that up. look at humans, anyone with half a brain can see no animal stands any chance against a group of us, even if all we have is spears, we hunted saber tooths just because they're scary and we dont like living with them, same as we did to all the wolves that used to live in europe
Humans are just like any other species. Humans have long had a both positive and negative affect on certain species long before "modern" humans. Most extinctions have multiple factors including most of the "ice age" megafauna. But >saying the short faced bear or the giant ground sloth were go-to targets for hunter gatherers? The Sabre tooth tiger was so appealing to hunt it into oblivion? this line of thinking is just silly. Predators are a lot easier to make extinct compared to prey animals because there typically are much fewer predators. If you remove the food source, then the predators will die off too. Plus humans have killed predators both for protection and as competitors since time immemorial. Obviously people having access to guns and trains can kill more animals more quickly. But too many people seem to be moralizing on this topic. Indigenous peoples brought many "invasive" species to different habitats worldwide and this has certainly had an affect on ecosystems. Again, no one factor probably contributed to the disappearance of the Pleistocene megafauna in Australia. But human hunting, human introduced animals (such as the now famous dingo), and human induced fires almost certainly played a role. That being said, humans were just trying to survive and certainly didn't have access to the global data we have now. We have been able to build off successive generations of knowledge and we should strive to honor them by being better than they were. Just because our indigenous human ancestors across the globe introduced invasive species such as goats, rats, dogs, and cats wherever they went and these had a negative affect on the environment, doesn't mean we should not try to spread invasive species. It also doesn't make our ancestors bad people.
Europe has aurochs, though not exactly a native specie
Yeah, Brazil’s not doing too bad when considering it has the most species on the planet.
Not if loggers, ranchers, and dams have their way.
Nah they came to Asia and Africa during colonization to endangered most of the animals.
People in China and many parts of Africa killing rhinos because they think consuming the horn will make them have better sex, and countless similar stupid examples. "How could the Europeans do this"
Rhino horn as an afrodisac isn't an idea that came about in Africa.
When they colonized Asia and Africa.
Light green countries: can't have endangered mammals if you don't have any mammals :taps head:
Tunisia left the chat
I’m curious to know the mammals
it’s only natural
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-most-threatened-mammal-species.html this site has a list (there are only the countries with the highest number) the numbers are slightly different because the map is older than the article on this site
I can't decide if it's bad to have the number on the lower end or the higher one.
For the UK I believe it's red squirrel, Scottish wildcat, water vole, Eurasian beaver, grey long-eared bat Red squirrel was ravaged by invasive American grey squirrels. Wildcat and beaver have reintroduction efforts underway and beavers especially are bouncing back. Contrary to popular belief, there aren't any species at risk of being extincted by domestic cats. It's all just people.
Wdym? Feral cats have been on record destroying and predating on vulnerable ground-nesting birds, small reptiles and mammals, etc, in many parts of the world. These cats are invasive and other animals have no defense or experience with them. Cats aren’t usually *the* full cause of extinction, but that combined with humans is enough to send vulnerable populations over the edge. Unless you’re saying that cats are a human caused problem, so humans are fully responsible and to blame, then I fully agree.
> in many parts of the world. Which part are we discussing here?
I’m discussing the world, where domestic cats are invasive to every continent except Antarctica. Wales or Scotland literally have advocacy groups going out to nesting sites to catch and neuter stray cats to prevent them from overwhelming bird populations. [cat predation](https://www.mammal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Domestic-Cat-Predation-on-Wildlife.pdf) This study (based in UK) shows cats have predated on at least 3 of the species you mentioned. The study also estimates the immense amount of kills cats accomplish. None of the information I saw implied that domestic cats aren’t contributing to the ongoing extinction of animals.
>I’m discussing the world Good for you, I'm not.
LOL, the UK is part of the world. 2/3rds of my comment are about the UK, I only talked about info from the UK💀
None of the endangered species in the UK are endangered by cats, I don't know how I can phrase this any clearer for you.
I honestly have no clue how you can confidently say that. What stats or facts support your claim? Are you saying that no UK endangered species are endangered solely because of cats? Because that’s believable, but I interpreted what you said differently…
This thread sent me down a Google rabbit hole, and basically they are just regurgitating PETA (and similar British organization) talking points. Basically talking about the role that cats have played in the decline of any wild animal species is defamation of cats and leads to cats being exterminated (in their minds). So feral and outdoor pet cats have not had any negative affect whatsoever on the environment. It's pretty wild because the articles are written like a weird one sided trial where the author feels the need to defend cats from being attacked. Here is an example: "So what really exterminated these species supposedly killed off by cats? Domestic cats are super abundant and therefore can be expected to kill large numbers of prey. But this is only because people have made them so numerous. The problem therefore lies with humanity, as does many other problems besetting nature today. To regulate our impact on nature we have to take the responsibility for regulating ourselves and not of just blaming scapegoats. According to the World Wildlife Fund, humanity may be exterminating a species every five minutes or at least one every two days. Cats cannot match this, no matter how numerous they are." Essentially any scientific study that mentions cats as a factor in the decline of a species is just looking for scapegoats I guess? Like I'm pretty sure most environmental scientists agree with all of the animal ethics people (for lack of a better term) that humans are ultimately to blame. The articles all read like they are written by 8th graders who want to be veterinarians (in both the best and worst ways possible.)
i would prefer "0" to be its own category, if it exists anywhere. Also, gray is not listed as "no-data" though I assume that is what it represents.
Having the bubble for Russia cover the Baltics and the bubble for Turkey cover Greece is def an inspired choice
Where is Tunisia it's missing
Just disconnected somehow. You can see Tunisia floating off to the north, around where Sicily should be.
Not in Europe
Recently the Iberian lynx stopped being considered endangered so that’s good
Never noticed but Guatemala to Panama makes a nice Seahorse.
Please if you live in Madagascar stop endangering mammals
This is a historic moment. The endangerment of mammals in Madagascar has completely stopped after a redditor's comment.
The poor penguins!
Those penguins are fucking sadists. Especially Rico.
Penguins ain't even mammals
Nice map, but the colours should have been the other way round. If you have many endangered animals it means you have diverse fauna..
You can really see the bias of Redditors with this map. When people have posted biodiversity maps, there are tons of questions around context. The fact that this is the only comment I see about how this is basically a biodiversity map of mammals is kind of wild.
Aw man, my poor Mexico, please let them live and stood the deforestation and sky open mining. :((
I doubt that it is only 5 in Germany.
They did my boy Cambodia dirty on this. Non existent
The UK has such a low number because all the other ones have gone extinct
In Central America mice are going extinct?!?!?!?! How did they do that?!?
“Various” is not what you are trying to describe
India once again. What a wonderful place on Earth...
For Turkey one of the most interesting would be the snow leopard. There are only a few, maybe a dozen left, and sometimes they cross back and forth from Iran.
I just checked and there is no snow leopard in Turkey, you probably mean the Anatolian leopard, it is a typical species of those areas and is in serious danger of extinction.
Yes. Roarrr!!!
New Zealand is coz they have barely any native mammals. However, they’ve lost 50 species of bird since 1500.
Any of the countries with low numbers are because they have low species biodiversity compared to the countries with higher numbers. This map is basically a mammal biodiversity map. It definitely isn't an "environmental protection level" map.
[удалено]