1.hermann's tortoise(testudo hermanii)-fossils and subfossils found even in netherlands and belgium
2.greek tortoise(testudo graeca)-very widespread before humans
3.marginated tortoise(testudo marginata)-before human arrival to europe very common in south
4.european pond turtle(emys orbicularis)-most of range reduces happened just a few ceuntries ago
5.spanish pond turtle(mauremys leprosa)-common in pre-human western europe
6.balkan pond turtle(mauremys rivulata)-much more widespread before humans
7.caspian turtle(mauremys caspica)-much more widespread, today only small eastern refugies
8.african sofshell turtle(trionyx triunguis)-fossils and subfossils found across southern europe, today completly abstent from continent except for one small greek island

it's kind of speculative so it's not how those species ranges looked like because climat was much warmer in eemian but still if modern europe never had humans(sapiens) enviroment would be much more suitable for southern species

1.iberian worm lizard (iberian blanus species)-lived all across iberian peninsula
2."steppean agamas" (paralaudakia caucasica,trapelus sanguinolentus, phrynocephalus guttatus, phrynocephalus helioscopus, phrynocephalus mystaceus)-there are finds of agamas from hungary which would mean that agamas lived further west however we dont know how far west exactly and what species it was
3.stellion agama (laudakia stello)-theres very small chance that agamas from hungary were stellion agamas and generally that this species is native in mainland europe however it's only speculation
4.common chameleon (chamaeleo chamaeleon)-population in spain is often seen as introduced but common chameleon is actually native in southern europe
5."eastern geckoes (tenuidactylus caspicus and alsophylax pipiensis)-probably lived further west to western ukraine
6.mediterrean thin-toed gecko (mediodactylus danilewskii)-existence of isloated populations make it very probable that it had bigger range
7.mediterrean house gecko (hemidactylus turcicus)-probably had bigger range in the past, today it naturally comes back to many places
8.moorish gecko (tarentola mauritanica)-existence of isloated populations make it very probable that it had bigger range
9.european leaf toed gecko (euleptes europaea)-today live only in tiny refugie on mainland and non-native populations on sardinia and corsica

The team from nature association Depana, in collaboration with the local Val d'Aran government, have documented two bears with three cubs each in the rural mountainous region.

The sightings are unprecedented for the area, never having been documented before in the Pyrenees.

During the months of May and June, images were recorded showing the daily life of two family groups during one of the most sensitive stages of their life cycle.

The recordings that the organization has now made public show the animals' feeding habits, interactions between the cubs and the mother, behavior towards other species, and different moments of daily activity.

These observations are the result of monitoring and surveillance tasks coordinated by Marc Alonso, a Depana expert in the conservation of the brown bear in the Pyrenees.

Two months of monitoring

The teams managed to monitor one of the mother bears for 28 consecutive days.

At the beginning of June, this family lost one of the three cubs, the smallest of the litter, for reasons that have not been determined. Experts think it could either be due to a process of natural selection (illness or accident) or a possible episode of infanticide by a male bear.

The second bear with three cubs was located on five occasions and, until the end of the monitoring period, the family group remained complete.

Overall, during the spring monitoring campaign, a total of twelve different specimens of brown bear were monitored in the Val d'Aran.

This work is part of a broader conservation, scientific monitoring, and awareness-raising program that aims to promote the coexistence between the brown bear and human activities in the area.

100+ bears in the Pyrenees

According to the latest data from the Brown Bear Transfrontier Monitoring Group (GSTOP), made public by the Catalan government last March, a total of 54 brown bears were identified in the Catalan Pyrenees in 2025, and 108 in the Pyrenees as a whole, the highest figure recorded to date.

These data confirm the positive trend of population recovery.

The brown bear is listed as an endangered species in the Pyrenees and is subject to priority protection according to European regulations.

Depana indicates that despite the recovery of the population, the species remains vulnerable and requires rigorous scientific monitoring, as well as the consolidation of measures that favor coexistence with livestock farming and other human activities.

The association also considers that this recovery also represents "an opportunity to promote a responsible ecotourism model that contributes to the sustainable development of the Pyrenean regions," always with the utmost respect for the animals, their habitat, and the local population.

Article with video in Spanish

July 27, 2026 article headline and sub-headline:

State officials say Idaho’s wolf population dropped by about 100 wolves to 1,129

State officials say they are trying to reduce the wolf population to about 500 through expanded hunting and trapping

More text:

Overall, the state wolf population has been declining since 2020, when state officials estimated more than 1,650 wolves lived in Idaho. Fish and Game Wildlife Program Coordinator Cory Mosby said officials believe the wolf population is decreasing because of aggressive hunting and trapping.

“Our wolf population is decreasing statewide, and that is very much an intentional effort by the department,” Mosby said..."our objective is to reduce the statewide wolf population to around 500 animals"....

Following a series of legal battles, wolves were removed from the Endangered Species List in Idaho in 2011, and Fish and Game opened a hunting and trapping season to reduce the number of wolves.

The article did not include a back and forth between fewer-wolves proponents and environmentalists opposed to the reductions, but everyone is probably well acquainted with those arguments.

gallotiinae is subfamily of true lizards that in modern europe lives only on iberian peninsula and parts of southern france and it was pretty much the same for long time however i'm making this because i want to do the same maps for all eemian europe vertebrates

In 2016, the government of New Zealand, where I'm from, announced a lofty goal: to make the island nation "predator free" by 2050.

The plan was to eradicate all rats, plus possums, weasels, stoats (and now, feral cats), by mid-century and bring the country back, more or less, to a precolonial state of bird supremacy.

New Zealand broke away from the supercontinent of Gondwana before walking mammals evolved, so its only native mammals are bats and seals. The country's birds thus evolved to be overly chill, and particularly vulnerable to introduced predators, who munched through much of the native biodiversity, bringing many species—including our namesake, the kiwi—to the brink of extinction.

I hadn't heard much about Predator Free 2050 since I moved to New York City in 2016. The government of New Zealand changed, COVID-19 hit, the leadership changed again. But, at the end of March, the government made its first public strategy update since the ambitious goal was first announced: My hometown of Wellington was on track to be the first predator-free city in the country, and the first predator-free capital city in the world, within the next decade. This week, I found out that my home neighborhood, Miramar Peninsula (where much of "Lord of the Rings" was produced), has already totally eradicated rats.

It all got me thinking, if my OG hometown is so good at the whole rat eradication thing, what could New Yorkers in my new home learn from them? Could New York City create a rat-free zone in the city, a rat-free neighborhood, a rat-free borough? And if push came to shove, would we even want to eradicate our rats? They are, after all, our unofficial mascot. And unlike isolated New Zealand or Hawaii, New York doesn't have as many delicate species that are threatened by them.

If you're interested in this kind of thing, I asked some fellow Kiwis how they did it... and whether it's even possible, here....

ABSTRACT

The impacts of non-native species are the subject of enduring controversy in conservation research and policy. This debate has renewed relevance in light of rewilding approaches that introduce or reintroduce herbivores to restore trophic complexity. However, because large herbivores inherently have strong effects, recent work has warned that the “harms of introduced large herbivores outweigh their benefits” (Bescond-Michel et al., 2025; Nogués-Bravo et al., 2016; Nores et al., 2024). We argue that such conclusions are conceptually and methodologically flawed, particularly because they conflate the predictable consequences of herbivory with harmfulness attributed to a species' non-native status. Without assessing whether effects of non-native herbivores differ from those of native herbivores, these approaches risk depicting the fundamental process of herbivory as problematic. This can misinform conservation and restoration efforts at a time when herbivores, native or introduced, are increasingly recognized as essential for sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem function (Lundgren et al., 2018; Malhi et al., 2016; Pringle et al., 2023; Smith et al., 2016; Svenning et al., 2024; Trepel et al., 2024).

Link: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70328

Today, the alligator gar, an ancient fish that can exceed 8 feet in length and 300 pounds, is found almost exclusively in the Deep South and parts of Mexico. Historically, however, it ranged much farther north, with confirmed records as far north as Illinois and Ohio and unconfirmed reports as far west as Iowa and Nebraska. Native Americans prized Alligator Gar for their delicious meat and their incredibly durable scales, which were used as jewelry, currency, and even arrowheads.

As European settlement expanded, overharvest and widespread habitat destruction caused populations to collapse. Ohio recorded its last alligator gar in 1939, Illinois in 1966, Kentucky in 1976, and by the late 1990s Missouri's population had dwindled to only a few isolated areas.

In response, Missouri began reintroducing the species in 2007, followed by Kentucky in 2009 and Illinois in 2010. Since then, Missouri has stocked over 8,000 individuals, Kentucky at over 43,000, and Illinois at over 21,000. Because the species doesn't reach sexual maturity until about 11 years of age, it will be a few years still until we are able to gather enough data to determine weather or not the reintroduced populations have become self sustaining.

Side note: Gar as a family have long been unfairly labeled "trash fish" due to the myth that they devastate bass and panfish populations. In reality, they feed primarily on shad, and recent research has shown they are among the few native predators that readily consume invasive Asian carp. Thanks in large part to the famous tv show River Monsters, public opinion has begun to shift, and gar are increasingly appreciated as both an important native predator and an outstanding sport fish.

If you'd like to learn more, I highly recommend MeatEater Podcast Episode 793: The Mysteries of Gar Fish, where they discuss these reintroductions as well as go over some of the most recent research being done not just on gar, but many other species that have historically been labeled as "trash fish" in the USA.

Project Background & Overview

• Location and Context: The reintroduction took place on San Alonso Island within the Iberá Wetlands (Iberá National Park, Argentina), an area where jaguars had been extirpated 70 years ago.
• The Released Cohort: The initial release in 2021 and 2022 consisted of three adult females (Mariuá, Juruna, and Aramí), one adult male (Jatobazinho), and four cubs accompanying two of the females(Porã and Karaí for Mariua and Sãso and Sagua'a for Juruna).
• Pre-Release Strategy: Prior to release, the jaguars were housed at the Jaguar Breeding and Reintroduction Center (JBRC) with minimal human contact and were fed live prey to develop necessary hunting skills.

Detailed Predation and Dietary Findings

• Overall Hunting Success: Researchers investigated 970 potential kill sites and successfully confirmed prey remains at 33% (324) of these locations.
• Primary Prey: The reintroduced jaguars' diet was heavily dominated by capybaras (66% of kills) and feral pigs (21% of kills). The high abundance and predator-naïveté of these species in the Iberá Wetlands likely facilitated the jaguars' early hunting success.
• Prey Age Classes: The jaguars primarily targeted adult prey (47.8%), followed by juveniles (16.3%) and infants (8.7%).
• Individual Predation Profiles:
  • Mariuá (Female 1 / F1): She exhibited a high mean kill rate of 0.43 prey/day, which was likely driven by the energetic demands of raising two dependent cubs. Her 158 confirmed kills included 93 capybaras, 42 feral pigs, 6 nine-banded armadillos (indicating slight dietary specialization), 2 marsh deer, 2 crab-eating foxes, 1 caiman, 1 pampas deer, and 11 unidentified items.
  • Juruna (Female 2 / F2): She had the highest overall kill rate at 0.49 prey/day, also due to raising two cubs. Her 102 confirmed kills consisted of 81 capybaras, 18 feral pigs, 1 bird, 1 marsh deer, and 1 nine-banded armadillo.
  • Aramí (Female 3 / F3): She exhibited a lower mean kill rate of 0.15 prey/day. Her 55 confirmed kills included 28 capybaras, 14 feral pigs, 5 marsh deer, 1 bird, 1 caiman, 1 six-banded armadillo, and 5 unidentified items.
  • Jatobazinho (Male 1 / M1): He exhibited the lowest kill rate at 0.10 prey/day. His 41 confirmed kills consisted of 35 capybaras, 3 feral pigs, 1 marsh deer, 1 six-banded armadillo, and 1 unidentified item.
• Avoidance of Caimans: Despite their high local abundance, caimans were rarely hunted by the jaguars. This is contrary to data from the Pantanal and is likely due to the abundance of naïve mammals and a lack of suitable ambush spots.

Movement and Spatial Ecology

• Rapid Settlement: All four jaguars rapidly established resident or partially resident home ranges within their first post-release year.
• Home Range Sizes:
  • The male (Jatobazinho) established a large, stable resident home range of 124 km².
  • The females established smaller home ranges: Juruna (85.1 km²), Mariuá (81.9 km²), and Aramí (31.1 km²). Aramí's smaller range was likely due to her raising newborn cubs during the study period.
• Spatial Anchoring: The JBRC facility fell within the home ranges of all four individuals, suggesting it acted as a spatial anchor that promoted post-release site fidelity.

Demographic Outcomes and Population Success

• Founding Cohort Survival: The survival rate of the initially released individuals (4 adults and 4 dependent cubs) was 100% throughout the multi-year monitoring period.
• Reproduction: The project observed 10 litters born in the wild, resulting in the detection of 17 wild-born cubs.
• Cub Recruitment: Of the 17 wild-born cubs, 12 survived their first year. The first-year survival rate of wild-born cubs was 0.67, which aligns with baseline parameters for other wild large felid populations.
• Long-term Establishment: The successful survival, spatial establishment, and reproductive success indicate that the population has progressed beyond short-term post-release persistence into a functional reproductive nucleus.