Is the domestication phenomenon more perceived than real?

Human associations with animals involve a diversity of sectors that promote animals as being domesticated, and that position may also convey that individuals used in those situations require lesser concern in captivity than if they were utilised wild organisms. The domestication phenomenon is complex and multi-stage, involving genetics, successive generations, extensive time periods, and other factors—and is not merely a process of selective breeding for desired characteristics. This report considers whether the domestication phenomenon is more perceived than real. We examine the use of the term and its inferences, examples of species that are considered to be domesticated, and analyse those species for their adherence to or divergence from domestication principles. As assessed by their ability or inability to establish invasive or self-sustaining released or introduced populations, of the 46 studied species recorded as domesticated, all were associated with confirmed invasive or self-sustaining populations, with the qualified exception of domestic dogs. We conclude that available material does not indicate that the domestication phenomenon genuinely applies to any animal, and therefore requires urgent revision. Wrongly assuming or misrepresenting animals as being adapted to highly controlled and restrictive captive conditions based on their presumed domestication may overlook major biological needs, and result in significant or severe deprivation, stress, morbidity, and premature mortality, as well as mislead consumers regarding the nature of animals and their by-products.