text:
Dominance hierarchy

In the zoological field of ethology, a dominance hierarchy (formerly and colloquially called a pecking order) is a type of social hierarchy that arises when members of animal social groups interact, creating a ranking system. A dominant higher-ranking individual is sometimes called an alpha, and a submissive lower-ranking individual is called a beta. Different types of interactions can result in dominance depending on the species, including ritualized displays of aggression or direct physical violence. In social living groups, members are likely to compete for access to limited resources and mating opportunities. Rather than fighting each time they meet, individuals of the same sex establish a relative rank, with higher-ranking individuals often gaining more access to resources and mates. Based on repetitive interactions, a social order is created that is subject to change each time a dominant animal is challenged by a subordinate one.

Definitions
Dominance is an individual's preferential access to resources over another based on coercive capacity based on strength, threat, and intimidation, compared to prestige (persuasive capacity based on skills, abilities, and knowledge). A dominant animal is one whose sexual, feeding, aggressive, and other behaviour patterns subsequently occur with relatively little influence from other group members. Subordinate animals are opposite; their behaviour is submissive, and can be relatively easily influenced or inhibited by other group members.

Dominance

For many animal societies, an individual's position in the dominance hierarchy corresponds with their opportunities to reproduce. In hierarchically social animals, dominant individuals may exert control over others. For example, in a herd of feral goats it is a large male that is dominant and maintains discipline and coherence of the flock. He leads the group but shares leadership on a foraging expedition with a mature she-goat who will normally outlast a succession of dominant males. However, earlier work showed that leadership orders in goats were not related to age or dominance. In sheep, position in a moving flock is highly correlated with social dominance, but there is no definite study to show consistent voluntary leadership by an individual. In birds, dominant individuals preferentially select higher perches to put themselves in the best position to detect and avoid predators, as well as to display their dominance to other members of their own species. It has been suggested that decision-taking about the actions of the group is commonly dissociated from social dominance.

When individuals seek high rank
Given the benefits and costs of possessing a high rank within a hierarchical group, there are certain characteristics of individuals, groups, and environments that determine whether an individual will benefit from a high rank. These include whether or not high rank gives them access to valuable resources such as mates and food. Age, intelligence, experience, and physical fitness can influence whether or not an individual deems it worthwhile to pursue a higher ranking in the hierarchy, which often comes at the expense of conflict. Hierarchy results from interactions, group dynamics, and sharing of resources, so group size and composition affect the dominance decisions of high-ranking individuals. For example, in a large group with many males, it may be difficult for the highest-ranking male to dominate all the mating opportunities, so some mate sharing is likely to exist. These opportunities available to subordinates reduce the likelihood of a challenge to the dominant male: mating is no longer an all-or-nothing game and the sharing is enough to placate most subordinates. Another aspect that can determine dominance hierarchies is the environment. In populations of Kenyan vervet monkeys, high-ranking females have higher foraging success when the food resources are clumped, but when food is distributed throughout an area they lose their advantage, because subordinate females can acquire food with less risk of encountering a dominant female.

Foraging success
A benefit to high-ranking individuals is increased foraging success and access to food resources. During times of water shortage the highest-ranking vervet females have greater access than subordinates females to water in tree holes. In chacma baboons, the high-ranking males have the first access to vertebrate prey that has been caught by the group, and in yellow baboons the dominant males feed for longer without being interrupted.

In many bird species, the dominant individuals have higher rates of food intake. Such species include dark-eyed juncos and oystercatchers. The dominant individuals in these groups fill themselves up first and fill up more quickly, so they spend less time foraging, which reduces the risk of predation. Thus they have increased survival because of increased nutrition and decreased predation.

Reproductive success
In primates, a well-studied group, high rank brings reproductive success, as seen in a 1991 meta-analysis of 32 studies. A 2016 study determined that higher status increased reproductive success amongst men, and that this did not vary by type of subsistence (foraging, horticulture, pastoralism, agriculture). This contradicts the "egalitarian hypothesis", which predicts that status would affect reproductive success more amongst foragers than amongst nonforagers.

High-ranking bonnet macaque males have more access to fertile females and consequently partake in most of the matings within the group; in one population, three males were responsible for over 75% of matings. In this population, males often vary in rank. As their rank improves, they gain more exclusive time with fertile females; when their rank decreases, they get less time. In many primates, including bonnet macaques and rhesus monkeys, the offspring of high-ranking individuals have better fitness and thus an increased rate of survival. This is most likely a function of two factors: The first is that high-ranking males mate with high-ranking females. Assuming their high rank is correlated with higher fitness and fighting ability, this trait will be conferred to their offspring. The second factor is that higher-ranking parents probably provide better protection to their offspring and thus ensure higher survival rates. Amongst rhesus macaques, higher-ranking males sired more offspring, though the alpha male was never the one to sire the most offspring, with that instead being a high-ranking but not top male. The complex relationship between rank and reproduction in this species is likely explained by the fact that rhesus macaques queue, rather than fight, for dominance, meaning that the alpha male is not necessarily the strongest or most attractive male.

In rodents, the highest-ranking male frequently sires the most offspring. The same pattern is found in most carnivores, such as the dwarf mongoose. The dwarf mongoose lives in a social system with one dominant pair. The dominant female produces all or almost all of the offspring in the living group, and the dominant male has first access to her during her oestrus period. In red deer, the males who experienced winter dominance, resulting from greater access to preferred foraging sites, had higher ability to get and maintain larger harems during the mating season.

In many monogamous bird species, the dominant pairs tend to get the best territories, which in turn promote offspring survival and adult health. In dunnocks, a species of bird that experiences many mating systems, sometimes individuals will form a group that will have one dominant male who achieves all of the mating in the group.

In the monogynous bee species Melipona subnitida, the queen seeks to maintain reproductive success by preventing workers from caring for their cells, pushing or hitting them using her antennae. Workers display aggression towards males, claiming priority over the cells when males try to use them to place eggs.

Costs of being dominant
There are costs to being of a high rank in a hierarchical group which offset the benefits. The most common costs to high-ranking individuals are higher metabolic rates and higher levels of stress hormones. In great tits and pied flycatchers, high-ranking individuals experience higher resting metabolic rates and therefore need to consume more food in order to maintain fitness and activity levels than do subordinates in their groups. The energetic costs of defending territory, mates, and other resources can be very consuming and cause high-ranking individuals, who spend more time in these activities, to lose body mass over long periods of dominance. Therefore, their physical condition decreases the longer they spend partaking in these high-energy activities, and they lose rank as a function of age.

In wild male baboons, the highest-ranking male, also known as the alpha, experiences high levels of both testosterone and glucocorticoid, which indicates that high-ranking males undergo higher levels of stress which reduces fitness. Reduced health and longevity occurs because these two hormones have immunosuppressant activity, which reduces survival and presents opportunities for parasitic infestation and other health risks. This reduced fitness due to the alpha position results in individuals maintaining high rank for shorter periods of time and having an overall reduced health and longevity from the physical strain and costs of the position.

Interpersonal complementarity hypothesis
The interpersonal complementarity hypothesis suggests that obedience and authority are reciprocal, complementary processes. That is, it predicts that one group member's behaviours will elicit a predictable set of actions from other group members. Friendly behaviours are predicted to be met with friendly behaviours, and hostile behaviours are predicted to be reciprocated with similar, hostile behaviours. When an individual acts in a dominant, authoritative manner in a group, this behaviour tends to prompt submissive responses from other group members. Similarly, when group members display submissive behaviour, others feel inclined to display dominant behaviours in return. Tiedens and Fragale (2003) found that hierarchical differentiation plays a significant role in liking behaviour in groups. Individuals prefer to interact with other group members whose power, or status behaviour complements their own. That is to say, group members who behave submissively when talking to someone who appears to be in control are better liked, and similarly individuals who display dominant behaviours (e.g., taking charge, issuing orders) are more liked when interacting with docile, subservient individuals.

Benefits
Being subordinate offers a number of benefits. Subordination is beneficial in agonistic conflicts where rank predicts the outcome of a fight. Less injury will occur if subordinate individuals avoid fighting with higher-ranking individuals who would win a large percentage of the time — knowledge of the pecking order keeps both parties from incurring the costs of a prolonged fight. In hens, it has been observed that both dominants and subordinates benefit from a stable hierarchical environment, because fewer challenges means more resources can be dedicated to laying eggs. In groups of highly related individuals, kin selection may influence the stability of hierarchical dominance. A subordinate individual closely related to the dominant individual may benefit more genetically by assisting the dominant individual to pass on their genes.

Alpha male savanna baboons have high levels of testosterone and stress; over a long period of time, this can lead to decreased fitness. The lowest-ranking males also had high stress levels, suggesting that it is the beta males that gain the most fitness, avoiding stress but receiving some of the benefits of moderate rank. The mating tactics of savanna baboons are correlated with their age. Older, subordinate males form alliances to combat higher-ranking males and get access to females.

Fighting with dominant males is a risky behavior that may result in defeat, injury or even death. In bighorn sheep, however, subordinates occasionally win a fight for a female, and they father 44% of the lambs born in the population. These sheep live in large flocks, and dominance hierarchies are often restructured each breeding season.

Burying beetles, which have a social order involving one dominant male controlling most access to mates, display a behavior known as sneak copulation. While one male at a carcass has a 5:1 mating advantage, subordinate males will tempt females away from the carcass with pheromones and attempt to copulate before the dominant male can drive them forcefully away. In flat lizards, young males take advantage of their underdeveloped secondary sex characteristics to engage in sneak copulations. These young males mimic all the visual signs of a female lizard in order to successfully approach a female and copulate without detection by the dominant male. This strategy does not work at close range because the chemical signals given off by the sneaky males reveal their true nature, and they are chased out by the dominant.

Costs to subordinates
Subordinate individuals suffer a range of costs from dominance hierarchies, one of the most notable being reduced access to food sources. When a resource is obtained, dominant individuals are first to feed as well as taking the longest time. Subordinates also lose out in shelter and nesting sites. Brown hyenas, which display defined linear dominance in both sexes, allow subordinate males and females decreased time of feeding at a carcass. In toque monkeys subordinates are often displaced from feeding sites by dominant males. Additionally, they are excluded from sleeping sites, and they suffer reduced growth and increased mortality.

Subordinate individuals often demonstrate a huge reproductive disadvantage in dominance hierarchies. Among brown hyenas, subordinate females have less opportunity to rear young in the communal den, and thus have fewer surviving offspring than do high-ranking individuals. Subordinate males copulate far less with females than do the high-ranking males. In African wild dogs which live in social packs separated into male and female hierarchies, top-ranking alpha females have been observed to produce 76–81% of all litters.

Mitigating the costs
Subordinate animals engage in a number of behaviors in order to outweigh the costs of low rank. Dispersal is often associated with increased mortality and subordination may decrease the potential benefits of leaving the group. In the red fox it has been shown that subordinate individuals, given the opportunity to desert, often do not due to the risk of death and the low possibility that they would establish themselves as dominant members in a new group.

Conflict over dominance
Animal decisions regarding involvement in conflict are defined by the interplay between the costs and benefits of agonistic behaviors. When initially developed, game theory, the study of optimal strategies during pair-wise conflict, was grounded in the false assumption that animals engaged in conflict were of equal fighting ability. Modifications, however, have provided increased focus on the differences between the fighting capabilities of animals and raised questions about their evolutionary development. These differences are believed to determine the outcomes of fights, their intensity, and animal decisions to submit or continue fighting. The influence of aggression, threats, and fighting on the strategies of individuals engaged in conflict has proven integral to establishing social hierarchies reflective of dominant-subordinate interactions.

The asymmetries between individuals have been categorized into three types of interactions:

 * 1) Resource-holding potential: Animals that are better able to defend resources often win without much physical contact.
 * 2) Resource value: Animals more invested in a resource are likely to invest more in the fight despite potential for incurring higher costs.
 * 3) Intruder retreats: When participants are of equal fighting ability and competing for a certain territory, the resident of the territory is likely to end as the victor because he values the territory more. This can be explained further by looking at the example of the common shrews. If one participant believes he is the resident of the territory, he will win when the opponent is weaker or food is scarce. However, if both shrews believe they are the true territory holder, the one with the greater need for food, and therefore, the one that values the resource more, is most likely to win.

As expected, the individual who emerges triumphant is rewarded with the dominant status, having demonstrated their physical superiority. However, the costs incurred to the defeated, which include loss of reproductive opportunities and quality food, can hinder the individual's fitness. In order to minimize these losses, animals generally retreat from fighting or displaying fighting ability unless there are obvious cues indicating victory. These often involve characteristics that provide an advantage during agonistic behavior, such as size of body, displays, etc. Red stags, for example, engage in exhausting roaring contests to exhibit their strength. However, such an activity would impose more costs than benefits for unfit stags, and compel them to retreat from the contest. Larger stags have also been known to make lower-frequency threat signals, acting as indicators of body size, strength, and dominance.

Engaging in agonistic behavior can be very costly and thus there are many examples in nature of animals who achieve dominance in more passive ways. In some, the dominance status of an individual is clearly visible, eliminating the need for agonistic behavior. In wintering bird flocks, white-crowned sparrows display a unique white plumage; the higher the percentage of the crown that consists of white feathers, the higher the status of the individual. For other animals, the time spent in the group serves as a determinant of dominance status. Rank may also be acquired from maternal dominance rank. In rhesus monkeys, offspring gain dominance status based on the rank of the mother—the higher ranked the mother, the higher ranked the offspring will be (Yahner). Similarly, the status of a male Canada goose is determined by the rank of his family. Although dominance is determined differently in each case, it is influenced by the relationships between members of social groups.

Regulation mechanisms
Individuals with greater hierarchical status tend to displace those ranked lower from access to space, to food and to mating opportunities. Thus, individuals with higher social status tend to have greater reproductive success by mating more often and having more resources to invest in the survival of offspring. Hence, hierarchy serves as an intrinsic factor for population control, ensuring adequate resources for the dominant individuals and thus preventing widespread starvation. Territorial behavior enhances this effect.

In eusocial animals
The suppression of reproduction by dominant individuals is the most common mechanism that maintains the hierarchy. In eusocial mammals this is mainly achieved by aggressive interactions between the potential reproductive females. In eusocial insects, aggressive interactions are common determinants of reproductive status, such as in the bumblebee Bombus bifarius, the paper wasp Polistes annularis and in the ants Dinoponera australis and D. quadriceps. In general, aggressive interactions are ritualistic and involve antennation (drumming), abdomen curling and very rarely mandible bouts and stinging. The winner of the interaction may walk over the subordinated, that in turn assumes a prostrated posture. To be effective, these regulatory mechanisms must include traits that make an individual rank position readily recognizable by its nestmates. The composition of the lipid layer on the cuticle of social insects is the clue used by nestmates to recognize each other in the colony, and to discover each insect's reproductive status (and rank). Visual cues may also transmit the same information. Paper wasps Polistes dominulus have individual "facial badges" that permit them to recognize each other and to identify the status of each individual. Individuals whose badges were modified by painting were aggressively treated by their nestmates; this makes advertising a false ranking status costly, and may help to suppress such advertising.

Other behaviors are involved in maintaining reproductive status in social insects. The removal of a thoracic sclerite in Diacamma ants inhibits ovary development; the only reproductive individual of this naturally queenless genus is the one that retains its sclerite intact. This individual is called a gamergate, and is responsible for mutilating all the newly emerged females, to maintain its social status. Gamergates of Harpegnathos saltator arise from aggressive interactions, forming a hierarchy of potential reproductives.

In the honey bee Apis mellifera, a pheromone produced by the queen mandibular glands is responsible for inhibiting ovary development in the worker caste. "Worker policing" is an additional mechanism that prevents reproduction by workers, found in bees and ants. Policing may involve oophagy and immobilization of workers who lay eggs. In some ant species such as the carpenter ant Camponotus floridanus, eggs from queens have a peculiar chemical profile that workers can distinguish from worker laid eggs. When worker-laid eggs are found, they are eaten. In some species, such as Pachycondyla obscuricornis, workers may try to escape policing by shuffling their eggs within the egg pile laid by the queen.

Hormonal control
Modulation of hormone levels after hibernation may be associated with dominance hierarchies in the social order of the paper wasp (Polistes dominulus). This depends on the queen (or foundress), possibly involving specific hormones. Laboratory experiments have shown that when foundresses are injected with juvenile hormone, responsible for regulating growth and development in insects including wasps, the foundresses exhibit an increase in dominance. Further, foundresses with larger corpora allata, a region of the female wasp brain responsible for the synthesis and secretion of juvenile hormone, are naturally more dominant. A follow-up experiment utilized 20-hydroxyecdysone, an ecdysone known to enhance maturation and size of oocytes. The size of the oocytes plays a significant role in establishing dominance in the paper wasp. Foundresses treated with 20-hydroxyecdysone showed more dominance than did those treated with juvenile hormone, so 20-hydroxyecdysone may play a larger role in establishing dominance (Roseler et al., 1984). Subsequent research however, suggests that juvenile hormone is implicated, though only on certain individuals. When injected with juvenile hormone, larger foundresses showed more mounting behaviors than smaller ones, and more oocytes in their ovaries.

Naked mole-rats (Heterocephalus glaber) similarly have a dominance hierarchy dependent on the highest ranking female (queen) and her ability to suppress critically important reproductive hormones in male and female sub-dominants. In sub-dominant males, it appears that luteinizing hormone and testosterone are suppressed, while in females it appears that the suppression involves the entire suppression of the ovarian cycle. This suppression reduces sexual virility and behavior and thus redirects the sub-dominant's behavior into helping the queen with her offspring, though the mechanisms of how this is accomplished are debated. Former research suggests that primer pheromones secreted by the queen cause direct suppression of these vital reproductive hormones and functions however current evidence suggests that it is not the secretion of pheromones which act to suppress reproductive function but rather the queen's extremely high levels of circulating testosterone, which cause her to exert intense dominance and aggressiveness on the colony and thus "scare" the other mole-rats into submission. Research has shown that removal of the queen from the colony allows the reestablishment of reproductive function in sub-dominant individuals. To see if a priming pheromone secreted by the queen was indeed causing reproductive suppression, researchers removed the queen from the colony but did not remove her bedding. They reasoned that if a primer pheromones were on the bedding then the sub-dominant's reproductive function should continue to be suppressed. Instead however, they found that the sub-dominants quickly regained reproductive function even in the presence of the queen's bedding and thus it was concluded that primer pheromones do not seem to play a role in suppressing reproductive function.

Glucocorticoids, signaling molecules which stimulate the fight or flight response, may be implicated in dominance hierarchies. Higher ranking individuals tend to have much higher levels of circulating glucocorticoids than subdominant individuals, the opposite of what had been expected. Two core hypotheses attempt to explain this. The first suggests that higher ranking individuals exert more energy and thus need higher levels of glucocorticoids to mobilize glycogen for energy use. This is supported by the fact that when food availability is low, cortisol levels increase within the dominant male. The second suggests that elevated stress hormones are a result of social factors, particularly when the hierarchy is in transition, perhaps resulting in increased aggression and confrontation. As a result, the dominant individual fights more and has elevated glucocorticoids during this period. Field studies of olive baboons in Kenya seem to support this, as dominant individuals had lower cortisol levels in a stable hierarchy than did subdominant individuals, but the reverse was true at unstable times.

Brain pathways and hierarchy
Several areas of the brain contribute to hierarchical behavior in animals. One of the areas that has been linked with this behavior is the prefrontal cortex, a region involved with decision making and social behavior. High social rank in a hierarchical group of mice has been associated with increased excitability in the medial prefrontal cortex of pyramidal neurons, the primary excitatory cell type of the brain. High ranking macaques have a larger rostral prefrontal cortex in large social groups. Neuroimaging studies with computer stimulated hierarchal conditions showed increased activity in the ventral and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, one processing judgment cues and the other processing status of an individual. Other studies have determined that lesions to the prefrontal cortex (when the area is severed to disrupt functioning to observe its role in behavior) led to deficits in processing social hierarchy cues, suggesting this area is important in regulating this information. Although the prefrontal cortex has been implicated, there are other downstream targets of the prefrontal cortex that have also been linked in maintaining this behavior. This includes the amygdala through lesion studies in rats and primates which led to disruption in hierarchy, and can affect the individual negatively or positively depending on the subnuclei that is targeted. Additionally, the dorsal medial PFC-medial dorsal thalamus connection has been linked with maintenance of rank in mice. Another area that has been associated is the dorsal raphe nucleus, the primary serotonergic nuclei (a neurotransmitter involved with many behaviors including reward and learning). In manipulation studies of this region, there were changes in fighting and affiliative behavior in primates and crustaceans.

Female dominance in mammals

Female-biased dominance occurs rarely in mammals. It occurs when all adult males exhibit submissive behavior to adult females in social settings. These social settings are usually related to feeding, grooming, and sleeping site priority. It is observed consistently in hyenas, lemurs and the bonobo. The ring-tailed lemur is observed to be the most prominent model of female dominance.

There are three basic proposals for the evolution of female dominance:

 * 1) The Energy Conservation Hypothesis: males subordinate to females to conserve energy for intense male-male competition experienced during very short breeding seasons
 * 2) Female behavioral strategy: dominance helps females deal with the unusually high reproductive demands; they prevail in more social conflicts because they have more at stake in terms of fitness.
 * 3) Male behavioral strategy: males defer as a parental investment because it ensures more resources in a harsh unpredictable climate for the female, and thus, the male's future offspring.

In lemurs, no single hypothesis fully explains female social dominance at this time and all three are likely to play a role. Adult female lemurs have increased concentrations of androgens when they transition from non-breeding to breeding seasons, increasing female aggression. Androgens are greater in pregnant female lemurs, which suggests that organizational androgens might influence the developing offspring. Organizational androgens play a role in "explaining female social dominance" in ring-tailed lemurs, as androgens are associated with aggressive behavior in young females. Females that were "exposed to greater concentrations of maternal [androstenedione] late in fetal development were less likely to be aggressed against postnatally, whereas females that were...exposed to greater concentrations of maternal [testosterone]...were more likely to receive aggression postnatally". Dominance rank in female chimpanzees is correlated with reproductive success. Although a high rank is an advantage for females, clear linear hierarchies in female chimpanzees have not been detected. In "masculinized" female mammals like the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), androgens (i.e. specifically, androstenedione and testosterone) are "implicated in the organization and activation of...nonreproductive behavioral traits, including aggression, social dominance, rough-and-tumble play, and scent marking". For aggressively dominant female meerkats (Suricata suricatta), they have "exceptionally high concentrations" of androgens, "particularly during gestation".

Birds

The concept of dominance, originally called "pecking order", was described in birds by Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe in 1921 under the German terms Hackordnung or Hackliste and introduced into English in 1927. In his 1924 German-language article, he noted that "defense and aggression in the hen is accomplished with the beak". This emphasis on pecking led many subsequent studies on fowl behaviour to use it as a primary observation; however, it has been noted that roosters tend to leap and use their claws in conflicts.

Wild and feral chickens form relatively small groups, usually including no more than 10 to 20 individuals. It has been shown that in larger groups, which is common in farming, the dominance hierarchy becomes less stable and aggression increases.

Dominance hierarchies are found in many species of bird. For example, the blue-footed booby brood of two chicks always has a dominance hierarchy due to the asynchronous hatching of the eggs. One egg is laid four days before the other, and incubation starts immediately after laying, so the elder chick is hatched four days before the younger chick and has a four-day head start on growth. The elder, stronger chick almost always becomes the dominant chick. During times of food shortage, the dominant chick often kills the subordinate chick by either repeatedly pecking or by ousting the younger chick from the nest. The brood hierarchy makes it easier for the subordinate chick to die quietly in times of food scarcity, which provides an efficient system for booby parents to maximize their investment.

Eusocial insects
In insect societies, only one to few individuals members of a colony can reproduce, whereas the other colony members have their reproductive capabilities suppressed. This conflict over reproduction in some cases results in a dominance hierarchy. Dominant individuals in this case are known as queens and have the obvious advantage of performing reproduction and benefiting from all the tasks performed by their subordinates, the worker caste (foraging, nest maintenance, nest defense, brood care and thermal regulation). According to Hamilton's rule, the reproduction costs of the worker caste are compensated by the contribution of workers to the queen's reproductive success, with which they share genes. This is true not only for the popular social insects (ants, termites, some bees and wasps), but also for the naked mole-rat Heterocephalus glaber. In a laboratory experiment, Clarke and Faulkes (1997) demonstrated that reproductive status in a colony of H. glaber was correlated with the individual's ranking position within a dominance hierarchy, but aggression between potential reproductives only started after the queen was removed.

The social insects mentioned above, excluding termites, are haplodiploid. Queen and workers are diploid, but males develop from haploid genotypes. In some species, suppression of ovary development is not totally achieved in the worker caste, which opens the possibility of reproduction by workers. Since nuptial flights are seasonal and workers are wingless, workers are almost always non-breeders, and (as gamergate ants or laying worker bees) can only lay unfertilised eggs. These eggs are in general viable, developing into males. A worker that performs reproduction is considered a "cheater" within the colony, because it leaves disproportionately more descendants than do its sisters and mother. The advantage of remaining functionally sterile is only accomplished if every worker assume this "compromise". When one or more workers start reproducing, the "social contract" is destroyed and the colony cohesion is dissolved. Aggressive behavior derived from this conflict may result in the formation of hierarchies, and attempts of reproduction by workers are actively suppressed. In some wasps, such as Polistes fuscatus, instead of not laying eggs, the female workers begin being able to reproduce, but once being under the presence of dominant females, the subordinate female workers can no longer reproduce.

In some wasp species such as Liostenogaster flavolineata there are many possible queens that inhabit a nest, but only one can be queen at a time. When a queen dies the next queen is selected by an age-based dominance hierarchy. This is also true in the species Polistes instabilis, where the next queen is selected based on age rather than size. Polistes exclamans also exhibits this type of hierarchy. Within the dominance hierarchies of the Polistes versicolor, however, the dominant-subordinate context in the yellow paper wasps is directly related to the exchange of food. Future foundresses within the nest compete over the shared resources of nourishment, such as protein. Unequal nourishment is often what leads to the size differences that result in dominant-subordinate position rankings. Therefore, if during the winter aggregate, the female is able to obtain greater access to food, the female could thus reach a dominant position.

In some species, especially in ants, more than one queen can be found in the same colony, a condition called polygyny. In this case, another advantage of maintaining a hierarchy is to prolong the colony lifespan. The top ranked individuals may die or lose fertility and "extra queens" may benefit from starting a colony in the same site or nest. This advantage is critical in some ecological contexts, such as in situations where nesting sites are limited or dispersal of individuals is risky due to high rates of predation. This polygynous behavior has also been observed in some eusocial bees such as Schwarziana quadripunctata. In this species, multiple queens of varying sizes are present. The larger, physogastric, queens typically control the nest, though a "dwarf" queen will take its place in the case of a premature death.

Spectrum of social systems
Dominance hierarchies emerge as a result of intersexual and intrasexual selection within groups, where competition between individuals results in differential access to resources and mating opportunities. This can be mapped across a spectrum of social organization ranging from egalitarian to despotic, varying across multiple dimensions of cooperation and competition in between. Conflict can be resolved in multiple ways, including aggression, tolerance, and avoidance. These are produced by social decision-making, described in the "relational model" created by the zoologist Frans De Waal. In systems where competition between and within the sexes is low, social behaviour gravitates towards tolerance and egalitarianism, such as that found in woolley spider monkeys. In despotic systems where competition is high, one or two members are dominant while all other members of the living group are equally submissive, as seen in Japanese and rhesus macaques, leopard geckos, dwarf hamsters, gorillas, the cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher, and African wild dog. Linear ranking systems, or "pecking orders", which tend to fall in between egalitarianism and despotism, follow a structure where every member of the group is recognized as either dominant or submissive relative to every other member. This results in a linear distribution of rank, as seen in spotted hyenas and brown hyenas.

Context dependency

Dominance and its organisation can be highly variable depending on the context or individuals involved. In European badgers, dominance relationships may vary with time as individuals age, gain or lose social status, or change their reproductive condition. Dominance may also vary across space in territorial animals as territory owners are often dominant over all others in their own territory but submissive elsewhere, or dependent on the resource. Even with these factors held constant, perfect dominance hierarchies are rarely found in groups of any great size, at least in the wild. Dominance hierarchies in small herds of domestic horses are generally linear hierarchies whereas in large herds the relationships are triangular. Dominance hierarchies can be formed at a very early age. Domestic piglets are highly precocious and, within minutes of being born, or sometimes seconds, will attempt to suckle. The piglets are born with sharp teeth and fight to develop a teat order as the anterior teats produce a greater quantity of milk. Once established, this teat order remains stable with each piglet tending to feed from a particular teat or group of teats. Dominance–subordination relationships can vary markedly between breeds of the same species. Studies on Merinos and Border Leicesters sheep revealed an almost linear hierarchy in the Merinos but a less rigid structure in the Border Leicesters when a competitive feeding situation was created.

Species with egalitarian/non-linear hierarchies
Although many group-living animal species have a hierarchy of some form, some species have more fluid and flexible social groupings, where rank does not need to be rigidly enforced, and low-ranking group members may enjoy a wider degree of social flexibility. Some animal societies are "democratic", with low-ranking group members being able to influence which group member is leader and which one is not. Sometimes dominant animals must maintain alliances with subordinates and grant them favours to receive their support in order to retain their dominant rank. In chimpanzees, the alpha male may need to tolerate lower-ranking group members hovering near fertile females or taking portions of his meals. Other examples can include Muriqui monkeys. Within their groups, there is abundant food and females will mate promiscuously. Because of this, males gain very little in fighting over females, who are, in turn, too large and strong for males to monopolize or control, so males do not appear to form especially prominent ranks between them, with several males mating with the same female in view of each other. This type of mating style is also present in manatees, removing their need to engage in serious fighting. Among female elephants, leadership roles are not acquired by sheer brute force, but instead through seniority, and other females can collectively show preferences for where the herd can travel. In hamadryas baboons, several high-ranking males will share a similar rank, with no single male being an absolute leader. Female bats also have a somewhat fluid social structure, in which rank is not strongly enforced. Bonobos are matriarchal, yet their social groups are also generally quite flexible, and serious aggression is quite rare between them. In olive baboons, certain animals are dominant in certain contexts, but not in others. Prime age male olive baboons claim feeding priority, yet baboons of any age or sex can initiate and govern the group's collective movements.

title: Dominance hierarchy


text:
M. Thomas Inge

M. Thomas Inge (March 18, 1936 – May 15, 2021) was an American academic. He was the Robert Emory Blackwell Professor of Humanities at Randolph–Macon College in Ashland, Virginia, where he taught, edited, and wrote about Southern literature and culture, American humor and comic art, film and animation, Asian literature, and William Faulkner.

Early life
A native of Newport News, Virginia, he received his B.A. degree in English and Spanish from Randolph-Macon in 1959 and his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Vanderbilt University in 1960 and 1964 respectively.

Career
Inge taught at Michigan State University and then chaired the English departments at Virginia Commonwealth University and Clemson University.

As a senior Fulbright Lecturer, Inge taught at the University of Salamanca in Spain (1967–68), at three institutions in Buenos Aires, Argentina (1971), at Moscow State University in the former Soviet Union (1979), and at Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic (1994). As Resident Scholar in American Studies with the US Information Agency, a part of the State Department, he lectured and did diplomatic work in eighteen countries from 1982 to 1984, earning a commendation for distinguished work in the Soviet Union.

Inge authored or edited over sixty books and has been a pioneer in the development of popular culture as a legitimate field of academic study. He was one of the founders of the Popular Culture Association. His three-volume Handbook of American Popular Culture was cited by the American Library Association as an outstanding reference work in 1979 and has been issued in revised and expanded editions in 1989 and 2002. Publications include William Faulkner: Overlook Illustrated Lives (2006), The Incredible Mr. Poe: Comic Book Adaptations of the Works of Edgar Allan Poe (2008), New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, Volume 9: Literature (2008), My Life with Charlie Brown by Charles M. Schulz (2010), and The Dixie Limited: Writers on Faulkner and His Influence (spring 2016). The Society for the Study of Southern Literature gave him the Richard Beale Davis Award for Lifetime Contributions to Southern Letters in 2008. He founded the journal, Resources for American Literary Study, in 1971 and the Southern Studies Forum of the European Association for American Studies in 1995.

Inge was also one of the founders of the American Humor Studies Association and served for four years as Editor of its journal, Studies in American Humor. His work on humor includes editions of Sut Lovingood’s Yarns by Tennessee humorist George Washington Harris (1966, 1967, 1987), the Oxford World Classics edition of Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1997), and with Ed Piacentino, Southern Frontier Humor: An Anthology (2010). Some of his numerous essays on American humor have been collected in his books Comics as Culture (1990), The Frontier Humorists: Critical Views (1975), and Perspectives on American Culture: Essays on Humor, Literature, and the Popular Arts (1994).

The M. Thomas Inge Papers
The M. Thomas Inge Papers (in the Comic Arts Collection at Virginia Commonwealth University) includes magazines, catalogs, fanzines, programs and humor publications. This collection is composed of materials collected by Dr. Inge relating to his academic studies of the comic arts, popular culture, and American literature. The bulk of the collection is dated from the 1950s onward and is made up of many items collected by Inge covering the history of the comic arts. It includes a large collection of published and unpublished materials and ephemera items relating to the comic arts. Manuscripts by Inge and other writers are also included.

The collection contains correspondence with a number of noted artists and writers, including Art Spiegelman, Mort Walker, Bruce Duncan, and Harold Foster, and comic arts scholars. The collection includes advertisements, fan club materials, posters, art prints, animation cells, comic strip and comic book samples, comic and animation character drinking glasses, numerous buttons, records, and various other collectable items.

The collection is highlighted by a very large collection of reference journals including fanzines, newsletters, journals, and numerous other periodicals related to the comic arts. These periodical titles focus on the history and art of comic books and comic strips, cartoonists, comic book and comic strip characters, animation, and other aspects of the comic arts and popular culture. These materials, and the hundreds of comic books and reference books donated by Dr. Inge, have been incorporated into their own individual collections.

Articles

 * "Faulkner Reads the Funny Papers". Faulkner & Humor, edited by Doreen Fowler and Ann J. Abadie. University Press of Mississippi, 1986.
 * "Was Krazy Kat Black? The Racial Identity of George Herriman". Inge notes the 1971 San Francisco Chronicle report that Herriman's birth certificate stated he was "colored" and considers the relevance of this fact to Herriman's life and art. Inks, Volume 3, Number 2, 1996.

Books

 * Agrarianism in American Literature, Odyssey Press, 1969.
 * Handbook of American Popular Culture, Greenwood Press, 1979 (reprinted in 1990).
 * Bartleby the Inscrutable: A Collection of Commentary on Herman Melville's Tale "Bartleby the Scrivener", editor. Hamden, Conn: Archon Books, 1979.
 * Handbook of American Popular Literature. Greenwood Press, 1988.
 * Comics as Culture. University Press of Mississippi, 1990.
 * Anything Can Happen in a Comic Strip: Centennial Reflections on an American Art Form. University Press of Mississippi, 1995.

General references

 * Dunne, Michael. “M. Thomas Inge: A Smile All Around.”  Pioneers in Popular Culture Studies.  Edited by Ray B. Browne and Michael T. Marsden.  Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1999.  Pages 118-134.
 * Inge, M. Thomas. “A Pioneer’s Perspective.” The Secret Origins of Comics Studies.  Edited by Matthew J. Smith and Randy Duncan.  New York: Routledge, 2017.  Pages 260-261 and passim.
 * Inge, M. Thomas. “Agrarians All! Or Southerners without Masters.”  CrossRoads:  A Southern Culture Annual 2004.  Edited by Ted Ownby.  Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2004.  Pages 256-275.
 * Inge, M. Thomas. “Founding a Journal: Resources for American Literary Study.”  Resources for American Literary Study, 29 (2005): 1-8.
 * Wilson, Leslie. “M. Thomas Inge.”  12 Conversations with American Studies Scholars.  Hollywood, CA: Press Americana, 2015.  Pages 70–74.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: M. Thomas Inge


text:
Category:French occultists

French occultists.

title: Category:French occultists


text:
Johnny Logan

Johnny Logan may refer to:

 * Johnny Logan (baseball) (1926–2013), American baseball player
 * Johnny Logan (basketball) (1921–1977), American basketball player
 * Johnny Logan (singer) (born 1954), Australian-born Irish singer
 * Johnny "Guitar" Logan, main character in the film Johnny Guitar

title: Johnny Logan


text:
Category:American occultists

American occultists.

title: Category:American occultists


text:
User talk:Mo0

Archive 1 -- October 20, 2004 - November 9, 2005. Archive 2 -- November 9, 2005 - January 4, 2006. Archive 3 -- January 4, 2006 - March 1, 2006. Archive 4 -- March 4, 2006 - November 7, 2006.

As a note, I tend to reply to messages here on the talk page of the person sending them. If you'd rather I reply here, let me know. Thanks!

LOL
Found your wiki page boi, you goin down now!

Seriously though, lolin at the extreme amount of UBs. What is this, myspace.

( _ ;  ) ~ Roflfox

Please review the deletion of article Stripy
I don't have an account on english wikipedia, but I have it on Croatian edition. My user name there is hr:User:SvekY. I hope you won't mind answering me here, on this Talk page. Please, keep in mind that I am confused with your forrest of deletion policies, ways of deletion, etc. My wikipedia is by far smaller, so we don't have the need for all that yet.

A quote of my text to User talk:Mike Rosoft follows:

Deleted article "Stripy"

You deleted an article Stripy at 09:52, 19 November 2006 for the reason "(Web cartoon, no claim of notability)". Stripy is is not a web cartoon. I've seen it, and on an official web page you will see that, though short and low in count of episodes, they are not for download. Look it up on IMDb, and you will see it is a regular movie.

Besides, I don't see why should the article be deleted even if it is "just" about a web cartoon. In that hipothetical case, it could be merged with some other article. --Cartoon-lover896 83.131.111.47 23:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So, what's your verdict? Thank you for your patience. --Cartoon-lover896 83.131.174.12 02:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, I'd have to say that I agree with the ruling that was made, because, as the article was written, it doesn't cite any actual notice of significance or notability. I'd read up on notability guidelines before re-making the article.  To be honest, the fact that it did actually air on TV may make it notable enough for an article, if it aired nationally, but others may disagree with me on that.  The article should use information from iMDB and other neutral sources (such as a media mention somewhere) to back up the article and provide a reason why the cartoon is notable.  Also, it may be best suited for an article on the Italian Wikipedia, because the cartoon aired there but apparently hasn't aired in America.  You may find more people who know what it is over there rather than here, on an encyclopedia that focuses mostly on English-speaking subjects. 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Well argumented and informative. --Cartoon-lover896 83.131.173.68 02:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Editting of 'Jew'
Hello, I was cruising Wikipedia today without logging in and got a message saying I'd vandalized an article 'Jew'. I'd never even seen the article myself, so I looked and realized I wasn't logged in and the usertalk was for 69.43.65.27

I fear this is my COLLEGE'S IP, and that some moron (read: countless, countless many) at my school is the one responsible. I'm more afraid however if they keep it up (read: they WILL) I'll also be banned and unable to edit articles. Is this a real possibility? If I log in will I be safe or will banning of my school's IP block us all out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rett Mikhal (talk • contribs) 03:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

To: User MoO
I am trying to find out some information and I was wondering if you could help. Today (3/28/07), I added some material to the Jason Voorhees listing (concerning his abilities, weaknesses, etc.). Several hours later, I have reviewed the page, and the entire entry I posted is missing; it was accurate, grammatically correct, contained to obscenities, and was an overall quality contribution. I cannot think of any reason why it would be removed, nor can I locate and History listings claiming to have removed it.

In addition, I made a modification to the death of Professor Lowe under the Jason X listing; in it I included his last words, which were humerous; however, an individual removed them, stating that they were not related to the plot. In addition, they removed the details added prior to this line, basically reverting it to its original consideration (as was done with the Jason Voorhees entry).

I came across your name while checking the History, and was wondering if you could assist me. I am frustrated that this is happening (it is also not the first time a modification to a Jason Voorhees page posted by myself has disappeared). Could you please advise on how I should approach this problem (Example: was there anything wrong with posting the joke, and how can I determine who erased the Jason Voorhees material, so I may discuss it with them?).

Thank you for any help you can provide,

bluewiki3

Thank You
Thank you for you quick response and perspective; your explanation helped me to see where you were coming from. Also, I was not aware that there was a group contribution section; thank you for making me aware of this.

It must be tricky working a setup like this, due to different writing styles, preferences, persepectives, etc. Kudos, and thanks again for you timely and mannerly response.

Sincerely,

bluewiki3

P.S. If you'd like, I can go in and delete the previous note I set.

Killers kill Kill Everyone
Sadly, the anti-web forces have deleted the The Kill Everyone Project page. — Randall Bart (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status
The Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to and/or  status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bach Alive on Normal (O2JAM).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bach Alive on Normal (O2JAM).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Differentworld-cast.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Differentworld-cast.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

???
wut r u talkin about??????? im not a abusesr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.148.242 (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to clean up the discussion area to make it easer to follow....
I am trying to make the page easier to follow... see my reason for editing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anappleadaykeepsthedocaway (talk • contribs) 04:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks....
Ok, will do that. I just think it is a long winded argument that is between to posters and not very productive in the grand scheme of things on that page. Will move it to an archive... Anappleadaykeepsthedocaway (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

see you're coming back to the mop
In the last two years, the major things you may want to check are WP:CSD for the current wording of the requirements, WP:BLP, which has gotten rather complicated-- and fair use images, where practice seems to have gotten baroque beyond human understanding--at least, beyond mine. DGG (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC) (saw your note about this on a user page I was visiting) DGG (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Stanton
Please, excuse me, but where can I find the archived version of Michael Stanton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.89.2 (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
for stepping in at the List of science fiction. I don't know if it was from my report at edit war noticeboard, or random browsing, but it is a relief! And i'm glad you reverted his lovely final msg - i never refactor others talk pages, so thought it might remain for ever. A testament to my evil desire to add citations!Yobmod (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD of Luke Boyd
Hi there, just wondering how bad the Luke Boyd article was to make it a CSD:A7? The guy was an Olympic Boxer who got a fair bit of publicity pre-Beijing about his training attire. It might be borderline on the WP:ATHLETE requirements, but should easily pass A7. Could you please userfy it for me and I'll see if I can make it a decent article. I only noticed it as I had the Olympics article on my watchlist - not normally interested in boxing articles. Thanks The-Pope (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I guessed it must have been something like that (or worse!) I'll try to find more than just the press coverage on him training in pink and getting waxed (yep, a metrosexual boxer) before I recreate!  Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Userfy the LearnNB Page
Hi. Can you please send a copy back to me of the LearnNB page, so that I can re-examine it, and see if we can build the page properly so that it fits the criteria for Wikipedia inclusion. Kreimer12 (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Interop Vendor Alliance
Hi, someone deleted the article Interop Vendor Alliance. The IVA has more members than for instance the Open Handset Alliance. I'd like to try rewriting it again and document its notability and also add some external references (there are about 32.000 hits on Google). I'd be very thankful if you could restore the last revision under my user namespace User:Ghettoblaster/Interop Vendor Alliance. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Arts and Crafts Movement
I'm trying to improve that page and to add citations, but I have no knowledge of the movement in the USA. As you started the section on that topic a while ago, I wonder if you could add citations, which it still lacks. Thanks. Marshall46 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Nick-Thomas-Webster
Hi

I wonder if you can help please. During my vacation the Wikipedia page Nick Thomas-Webster was both noted for deletion and then subjected to Speedy deletion by B Wilkins in Canada - I was unable to note the tags since I was away and it all happened so quickly.

I messaged B Wilkins through the deletion review system and he stated that the external references given were user editable IMDB, Hollywood Reporter etc. I responded copying policies from IMDB and listing additional external sources to prove my points. He is now not responding. I have again placed a note on the deletion review page to ask other editors to look and review please. I have received an email suggesting I contacted you. I hope you can help.

Please feel free to contact me for any further information you require. nick@nicktw.com

Regards

Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicktw (talk • contribs) 10:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

moosock2
can i have the sourcecode to mooSock2.ocx? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.49.230 (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 16:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 13:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC).

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. – xeno talk 12:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators&oldid=526254016#Restoration_of_the_tools_.28proposal.29 recent change] to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mo0


text:
User talk:DarkSoldier

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Lst27 22:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page; Editing tutorial; Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article; Naming conventions; Manual of Style

JoJo
Thanks for giving me a hand with the mammoth task of explaining the many series of JoJo. Ideally, I'm hoping to separate the manga and anime stories, but that can be smoothed out over time. --Feitclub 06:13, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Turnsignals on a Land Raider, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Leuko 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Elder Gods (Mortal Kombat)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Elder Gods (Mortal Kombat), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of Elder Gods (Mortal Kombat). Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Timeline of fictional future events
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Timeline of fictional future events. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional future events. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Alex (Street Fighter) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex (Street Fighter) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Alex (Street Fighter) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Gen (Street Fighter) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gen (Street Fighter) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gen (Street Fighter) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Birdie (Street Fighter) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Birdie (Street Fighter) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Birdie (Street Fighter) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Charlie (Street Fighter) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charlie (Street Fighter) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Charlie (Street Fighter) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Rugal Bernstein for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rugal Bernstein is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Rugal Bernstein until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Dee Jay for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dee Jay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dee Jay until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Twisted Kaiju Theater

The article Twisted Kaiju Theater has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Non-notable webcomic and references are not reliable"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:DarkSoldier


text:
1860 Democratic National Conventions

The 1860 Democratic National Conventions were a series of presidential nominating conventions held to nominate the Democratic Party's candidates for president and vice president in the 1860 election.

The first convention, held from April 23 to May 3 in Charleston, South Carolina, deadlocked after failing to nominate a ticket: two subsequent conventions, both held in Baltimore, Maryland in June, ultimately nominated separate presidential tickets.

Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois entered the Charleston convention as the front-runner for the presidential nomination, and while he won a majority on the first presidential ballot of the convention, convention rules at the time required a two-thirds majority to win the nomination, with Douglas' adherence to the Freeport Doctrine regarding slavery in the territories engendering strong opposition from many Southern delegates: opponents of Douglas's nomination spread their support among five major candidates, including former Treasury Secretary James Guthrie of Kentucky and Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia.

After 57 ballots over a span of two days, in which Douglas consistently won at least half of the delegates, the Charleston convention adjourned when it became apparent no candidate could secure the required two-thirds of all votes.

The Democratic convention reconvened in Baltimore on June 18, but many Southern delegates boycotted the convention or walked out in protest after the convention adopted a platform in which it pledged to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon questions of Constitutional Law regarding slavery.

Douglas was ultimately nominated for president on the second ballot (the 59th ballot overall). Senator Benjamin Fitzpatrick of Alabama was nominated for vice president, but he refused the nomination, and was replaced by former Governor Herschel Vespasian Johnson of Georgia.

The Southern Democrats who had boycotted, or walked out of, the Baltimore convention held their own separate convention and adopted a pro-slavery platform, and nominated incumbent Vice President John C. Breckinridge for president, with Senator Joseph Lane of Oregon as vice president.

While Douglas and Breckinridge received a combined 47.62% of the popular vote in the 1860 presidential election, they lost the election to Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Background
The front-runner for the nomination was Douglas, who was considered a moderate on the slavery issue. With the 1854 Kansas–Nebraska Act, he advanced the doctrine of popular sovereignty: allowing settlers in each Territory to decide for themselves whether slavery would be allowed—a change from the flat prohibition of slavery in most Territories under the Missouri Compromise, which the South had welcomed. However, the Supreme Court’s ensuing 1857 'Dred Scott' decision declared that the Constitution protected slavery in all Territories.

Douglas was challenged for his Senate seat by Abraham Lincoln in 1858, and narrowly won re-election, after the Lincoln-Douglas debates, by professing the Freeport Doctrine, a de facto rejection of Dred Scott, with militant Southern "Fire-Eaters", such as William Yancey of Alabama, opposing him as a traitor. Many of them openly predicted a split in the party and the election of Republican front-runner William H. Seward.

The 1860 Democratic National Convention convened at South Carolina Institute Hall (destroyed in the Great Fire of 1861) in Charleston, South Carolina, on April 23, 1860: the galleries at the convention were packed with pro-slavery spectators.

Party platform disputes
Urged by Yancey, the delegations from seven Deep South states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) met in a separate caucus before the convention. They reached a tentative consensus to "stop Douglas" by imposing a pro-slavery party platform which he could not run on if nominated.

The "Fire-eater" majority on the convention's platform committee, chaired by William Waightstill Avery of North Carolina, produced an explicitly pro-slavery document, endorsing Dred Scott and Congressional legislation protecting slavery in the territories. Northern Democrats refused to acquiesce, as Dred Scott was extremely unpopular in the North, and the Northerners said they could not carry a single state with that platform: this would end any Democratic prospect of retaining the White House, as no previous candidate had won the presidency without winning either New York or Pennsylvania, and only four (John Adams in 1796, James Madison in 1812, John Quincy Adams in 1824, and James Buchanan in 1856) had been elected without winning both. Douglas and supporters thus preferred the 1856 Cincinnati platform.

On April 30, the minority (Northern) report was substituted for that of the majority (Southern) report by a vote of 165 to 138. The question next in order before the convention was upon the adoption of the second resolution of the minority of the committee: on this question Alabama, Arkansas, one of Delaware's delegates, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas refused to vote. The Douglas party abandoned the vague second resolution, and it was defeated by an overwhelming vote of 238 to 21 (with 44 abstentions).

Between April 30 and May 1, 51 Southern delegates walked out of the convention in protest: the entire delegations of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas, three of the four delegates from Arkansas and one of the three delegates from Delaware. These delegates gathered at St. Andrews Hall on Broad Street and declared themselves the real convention as the Institute Hall convention proceeded to nominations.

Since both the majority and the minority resolutions on the Territorial question were rejected, nothing remained except the Cincinnati platform as the Douglas faction had desired. The dominant Douglas forces believed their path was now clear.

Two-thirds rule
Before the balloting for president commenced, Mr. Howard of Tennessee succeeded in obtaining a vote of the convention in affirmance of the two-thirds rule: on his motion they resolved, by 141 votes to 112, "that the President of the Convention be and he is hereby directed not to declare any person nominated for the office of President or Vice President unless he shall have received a number of votes equal to two-thirds of the votes of all the Electoral Colleges."

It was well known at the time that this resolution would rendered the regular nomination of Douglas impossible.

Presidential balloting
Six major candidates were nominated at the convention: Douglas, former Treasury Secretary James Guthrie of Kentucky, Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia, Senator Joseph Lane of Oregon, former Senator Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, and Senator Andrew Johnson of Tennessee.

Baltimore convention (Northern Democratic)
The Democrats re-convened at the Front Street Theater (destroyed in the Great Baltimore Fire of 1904) in Baltimore, Maryland, on 18 June.

Delegate re-admission disagreement
The resumed convention's first business was to decide whether to re-admit the delegates who had walked out of the Charleston session, or to seat replacement delegates who had been named by pro-Douglas Democrats in some states: other delegates had boycotted the Baltimore convention.

The credentials committee's majority report recommended re-admitting all delegates except those from Louisiana and Alabama, while the minority report recommended re-admitting some of the Louisiana and Alabama delegates as well. On June 22, the minority (Southern) report failed to be substituted for that of the majority (Northern) report by a vote of $145 1/2$-150.

With the admission of the new Louisiana and Alabama delegates, 56 delegates - most of those remaining from the South, and a scattering of delegates from northern and far western states - all walked out of the convention in protest.

Presidential balloting
After the convention resumed voting on a nominee, Douglas received $56 1/2$ of the $152 1/2$ votes cast on the first ballot (the 58th overall), and $151 1/2$ votes of the $50 1/2$ votes cast on the second ballot (the 59th overall).

A rollcall was taken following the second ballot, and it was realized that there were only $65 1/2$ delegates present, meaning that there were insufficient delegates for Douglas to receive the 202 votes required by Cushing's ruling at the first convention.

After the delegates unanimously voted to rescind that ruling, it was declared by acclamation that Douglas had received the required two-thirds of the votes cast, and he was therefore nominated.

Vice Presidential balloting
Senator Benjamin Fitzpatrick of Alabama was the only candidate for the vice presidential nomination.

During the call of the states, every vote recorded was in favor of Fitzpatrick with no exception until Pennsylvania was reached. One of Pennsylvania's votes was announced for former state senator William C. Alexander of New Jersey. Upon this announcement, a New Jersey delegate informed the delegates that he had been authorized before the convention, by Alexander himself, not to allow his name to be presented as a candidate. The Pennsylvanian who desired Alexander cast one blank vote thereafter.

Vice Presidential replacement
After the unanimous nomination of Fitzpatrick as the candidate for vice president, the convention adjourned on June 23, the sixth and last day of its session. On the same day, but after the adjournment, Fitzpatrick declined the nomination. Fitzpatrick's refusal of the vice presidential nomination occurred sixteen years after Silas Wright was the first to turndown the honor. In 1924, Frank Lowden would be the third and last person to date who refused their party's vice presidential nomination.

Vice Presidential candidate
Since the convention had already adjourned, the executive committee was required to name a replacement for Fitzpatrick.

On motion of Mr. Dick, the lone remaining delegate from North Carolina, the vice presidential nomination was conferred on former Senator and Governor Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia by acclamation.

Baltimore convention (Southern Democratic)
A second convention assembled at Baltimore on June 23, 1860. It was composed chiefly of the delegates who had walked out of or boycotted the Northern Democratic convention.

One of their first acts was to abrogate the two-thirds rule, as had been done by the Douglas convention: both conventions acted under the same necessity, since there were insufficient delegates remaining to allow the preservation of this rule at either convention.

The majority resolutions, whose replacement by the minority report facilitated the collapse of the Charleston convention, were reported and adopted unanimously, amid great applause.

Presidential balloting
After the adoption of the majority resolutions, the convention proceeded to select their candidates. Four names were placed in nomination: Breckinridge, Dickinson, Hunter, and Lane.

Vice Presidential balloting
After the applause for Breckinridge's nomination had subsided, the whole hall resounded with cries for Yancey for Vice President. After Yancey got on his feet, but before he could speak, Lane's name was presented and seconded.

No other names being presented for the office, the states were called and voted unanimously for Lane.

Consequences
After the break-up of the Charleston convention, many of those present stated that the Republicans were now certain to win the 1860 Presidential election.

In the general election, the actual division in Democratic popular votes did not directly affect any state outcomes except California, Oregon, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. Of these states, only California and Oregon were free states, and although both were carried by Republican nominee Abraham Lincoln they combined for only seven of Lincoln's 180 electoral votes. The latter three states were slave states that were carried by neither Douglas, Breckinridge nor Lincoln but by John Bell, nominee of the Constitutional Union Party. Composed mainly of former Whigs and Know-Nothings, the Constitutional Union Party attempted to ignore the slavery issue in favor of preserving the Union.

Even if California, Oregon and every state carried by Douglas, Breckinridge or Bell had been carried by a single presidential nominee, Lincoln would still have had a large majority of electoral votes. However, the split in the Democratic Party organization was a serious handicap in many states, especially Pennsylvania, and almost certainly reduced the aggregate Democratic popular vote. Pennsylvania's 27 electoral votes were especially decisive in ensuring a Republican victory – had Lincoln failed to carry that state combined with any other free state, he could not have obtained a majority of electoral votes, forcing a contingent election in the House of Representatives.

James M. McPherson suggested in Battle Cry of Freedom that the “Fire-eater” program of breaking up the convention and running a rival ticket was deliberately intended to bring about the election of a Republican as president, and thus trigger secession declarations by the slave-owning states. Whatever the “intent” of the fire-eaters may have been, doubtless many of them favored secession, and the logical, probable, and actual consequence of their actions was to fragment the Democratic party and thereby virtually ensure a Republican victory.

title: 1860 Democratic National Conventions


text:
Anthocharis stella browningi

Anthocharis stella browningi, the Utah Stella orangetip, is a subspecies of the Stella orangetip mainly found in the southern American Rocky Mountains especially in the drier areas.

title: Anthocharis stella browningi


text:
User:Adamshutes

Hi there....

I'm a Postdoctoral researcher at the Lineberger Cancer Centre, at UNC Chapel Hill. Cancer, small GTPases, cell biology, biochemistry.

Also know a fair bit about ancient Roman/Greek mythology and culture, Apple Macintosh. And I ride bikes (mountain, road and motor!).

ashutes at mac dot com

title: User:Adamshutes


text:
Aviculture

Aviculture is the practice of keeping and breeding birds, especially of wild birds in captivity.

Types
There are various reasons that people get involved in aviculture. Some people breed birds to preserve a species. Some people breed parrots as companion birds, and some people breed birds to make a profit.

Aviculture
Aviculture is the practice of keeping birds (class Aves) in captivity using controlled conditions, normally within the confines of an aviary, for hobby, business, research and conservation purposes. Some reasons for aviculture are: breeding birds to preserve the species because many avian species are at risk due to habitat destruction and natural disaster. Aviculture encourages conservation, provides education about avian species, provides companion birds for the public, and includes research on avian behaviour.

Publications and avicultural societies
Publications on aviculture include books on species which include pets, books on breeding and introductory books for parrots and softbills. There are also periodicals, both generalized and specific to types of birds, with articles on breeding, care, companionship, choosing a bird, and health effects. Supply companies publish catalogs of products for bird keepers.

There are avicultural societies throughout the world, but generally in Europe, Australia and the United States, where people tend to be more prosperous, having more leisure time to invest. In the UK, the Avicultural Society was formed in 1894 and the Foreign Bird League in 1932. In 1973 Aviornis was created, a bird-breeding association present in several European countries.

The oldest avicultural society in the United States is the Avicultural Society of America, founded in 1927. The ASA produces a bi-monthly magazine, ASA Avicultural Bulletin. The ASA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that focuses on breeding, conservation, restoration and education.

The first avicultural society in Australia was The Avicultural Society of South Australia, founded in 1928. It is now promoted with the name Bird Keeping in Australia. The two major national avicultural societies in the United States are the American Federation of Aviculture and the Avicultural Society of America, founded in 1927. The Budgerigar Society was formed in 1925.

The Avicultural Society of South Australia (founded in 1928) produces a monthly full-colour magazine, Bird Keeping in Australia.

Canariculture
From the common name canary (associated with the Serinus canaria), a song bird is native to the Canary Islands, Madeira, and the Azores. This bird has been kept as a cagebird in Europe from the 1470s to the present, now enjoying an international following. The terms canariculture and canaricultura have been used in French, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian respectively, to describe the keeping and breeding of canaries for some time. English speaking canary breeders are beginning to use the term more commonly.

Psittaculture
The word comes from the psittacinae (Latin psittacinus, for parrot, from Greek psittakos). Psittaculture is a word that has been used in the aviculture community since the early 1970s, to denote people who specialize in keeping, breeding and conserving psittacines species, also on preserving psittacines habitat and public awareness campaigns to save wild parrots. It is one branch of the science of aviculture.

A "psittaculturist" (parrot breeder) is a person who specializes in keeping, breeding and conserving psittacines species, also on preserving psittacines habitat and public awareness campaigns of the threats to the ongoing existence of parrots worldwide.

As with aviculture in the sub-branch of psittaculture, there are four levels of psittaculture:

 * 1) The specialist pet owner whom keep only parrots as pets, will have dozens of pet parrots.
 * 2) The specialist backyard hobbyist who keeps a modest collection of only parrots, breeds them on a very small scale.
 * 3) The specialist hobby farm breeder whose collection has grown so large, needs to shift out to rural farms. The farm breeder is still considered a hobbyist.
 * 4) The specialist professional parrot farmer derives their main income from the breeding, by selling only parrots.

title: Aviculture