Open Access
Open access
Wildlife Society Bulletin, volume 40, issue 2, pages 384-387

What is in a “common” name? A call for consistent terminology for nonnativeSus scrofa

David A. Keiter 1
John J Mayer 2
James Beasley 1
1
 
University of Georgia; Savannah River Ecology Laboratory; D.B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources; P.O. Drawer E Aiken SC 29802 USA
2
 
Savannah River National Laboratory; Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC; Savannah River Site Aiken SC 29808 USA
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2016-04-27
scimago Q2
wos Q4
SJR0.458
CiteScore2.1
Impact factor0.9
ISSN00917648, 23285540, 19385463
Nature and Landscape Conservation
Abstract
Sus scrofa is both a destructive invasive species and a popular game animal in many parts of the world, but there is a lack of consistency and accuracy in how scientists and wildlife managers refer to wild-living members of the species. The growing importance of this invasive species necessitates that scientists, managers, and policy-makers standardize use of a common name in a taxonomically accurate manner to effectively communicate to the general public and scientific community. In this commentary, we discuss the current terminology used for S. scrofa and, based upon the history of introductions of this species, propose that these animals be referred to as wild pigs within their introduced range unless it is known that the population consists of genetically pure wild boar or domestic pigs that have recently been released and become feral. Use of the term “wild pig” should reduce the potential to misclassify populations as a result of genetic introgression and evolution following release. Furthermore, we recommend that, when appropriate, the terms “nonnative” or “invasive” be included to describe wild pigs in their introduced range to emphasize their negative impacts on natural and anthropogenic environments. The effective control of wild pig populations considered to be invasive will require informed public support and sound scientific management, necessitating clear communication about this species among the research community, wildlife managers, and the general public. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.
Found 

Top-30

Journals

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Publishers

5
10
15
20
25
30
5
10
15
20
25
30
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated only for publications connected to researchers, organizations and labs registered on the platform.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
Share
Cite this
GOST | RIS | BibTex | MLA
Found error?