But I do wonder how many do live in Wales. If it’s not just an abandoned pet that would be really interesting.
There are less than 1,000 of them in the wild. Trust me if it was possible to establish a population somewhere else outside of captivity, scientists and conservationists would already be on it
That. Or the family fabricated the story for online fame.
Not saying that i have any evidence either way. Fundamentaly it is an unverifiable feel-good story with great online “viral” potential. It might be a very lucky axolotl who got abandoned, found and re-captured in the short window it could survive in the wild. It can also be a viral content strategy capturing eyeballs. In my, admitedly very jaded, guestimate I would give the two options about equal chances.
If this was some kind of crime they would have censored information for a long while if not clearly correct.
Olm in the Balkans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olm picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:P_anguinus-head1.jpg
An axolotl is a salamander that has evolved neoteny (imagine a frog staying as a tadpole its whole life). It's also specifically adapted to a specific lake system in Mexico City. If it is kept in water under 57°F (14°C) it will die in a few days. They are also extremely sensitive to changes in the water quality or chemistry. It's not clear that this one will even survive after being rescued
There aren’t many baby salamanders that size, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_giant_salamander#Breed... says “external gills remain until a length of about 20 cm (8 in) at an age of 3 years”, so it could be. I wouldn’t know whether these look similar, though.
Also there are 1,000 of these in the wild but there are over a million of them in captivity. You can get a typical morph for about $50.
You underestimate how many people lack impulse control or consideration over their choices, and their lack of understanding of consequences when buying a living organism.
If there is a wild population, that would be an even more amazing story.
Middle schooler finds coin from Troy in Berlin https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/75848
‘It Had Teeth’: A 3-Year-Old Discovers Ancient Treasure in Israel While on a hike with her family, a child stumbled across a 3,800-year-old Egyptian amulet. It will go on display in an upcoming exhibition. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/world/middleeast/child-an...
Sarah Huckabee Sanders' kids scream with excitement after finding 2,000-year-old coins in West Bank cave https://www.foxnews.com/travel/sarah-huckabee-sanders-kids-s...
What an odd thing to say.
We need a new term, kind of like how Thailand is handling the situation for so long. It is clear that there cannot be just two genders.
They evolved to be quite dependent on the unique agricultural islands in the Valley of Mexico called Chinampas. These were drained by the colonizers. Which is why Mexico City is now facing a severe water crisis and also why these creatures are endangered
This is simply not true. The highiest maize yield per hectare I can find anywhere online for chinampas is less than half the 13.5 metric tons per hectare that farmers get in Iowa. The more reputable numbers are less than 1/4 of that. It's probably true that they were among the most productive pre-modern agricultural plots which is a great achievement, but there's no need to make things up.
They produce a lot more than just corn. Not only can they be farmed for hundreds of years without break, but they can be harvested 4 to 7 times per year. They are 13 times as productive per unit of area as conventional dry-land farming.
> In Xochimilco, roughly 750 hectares of active chinampas produce around 80 tons of vegetables daily. This translates to a massive, continuous, year-round output of over 38,000 tons per year across the entire area
So that translates to 50.7 metric tons per hectre.
---
> the most productive pre-modern agricultural plots which is a great achievement, but there's no need to make things up
Post-industrial agriculture is not actually more productive per area. It's just more productive per input labor.
> Agricultural yields within the most densely populated and productive preindustrial land-use systems compared well with modern yields and were sustained in some regions for centuries to millennia, even though they also tended to require extreme inputs of labor and other socially unsustainable hardships
>Post-industrial agriculture is not actually more productive per area. It's just more productive per input labor.
This is alarmingly false. As I pointed out many conventional vegetables yield 100 tons per hectare today. Moreover yes they are more productive per unit of labor. The Mexica and their contemporary polities around Lake Texcoco were miserable slave societies that used armies of captured war salves (tlacotin) to perform much of the work. They also used unpaid corvee labor through the coatequitl system, and serfs known as mayeques. So honestly its quite the social advancement that we don't have to press people into agricultural labor at spear point anymore.
> Agricultural yields within the most densely populated and productive preindustrial land-use systems compared well with modern yields
The references for this quote are about South East Asian rice agriculture, which today is still done more or less done the way it was in premodern times. This quote doesn't support your argument and is at best deceptive.
> This is alarmingly false.
I'm sorry but I can't take your comment more seriously than a paper published in a respected journal that has been cited 1,099 times. It provides 4 sources to back up the claim I posted.
In scholarship on land use history this is pretty well accepted.
---
As for the specific chinampas yields, such high yields shouldn't be surprising when you have 4-7 harvest per year and require no periods of being fallow.
The UN's FAO provides more specific breakdowns on yields on page 22 of their report
https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/cd8...
You're have to download it but the designation also has more specific figures
https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/ba8d198e-a18b-4541-b94b-...
i'm not a farmer, but i do manage woodlands, have a huge garden, volunteered on farms over the years, worked in a sustainable ag non-profit, and have even tried distributing sweet potatoes, etc, so i have an avid interest in agriculture and our food system.
aside from the fact that the soil is one of the three most important components for growing food, therefore it's extremely important to take care of it if we want our species to live into future centuries... there is a lot of evidence that shows that industrial ag creates erosion problems (one easy example: all of the national forests in my area was degraded farm land that they converted to woodlands in the 30s, because they learned this fact that hard way then). believing that hunger is a solved problem because of 20th century style agriculture is a fallacy. the dust bowl is one historical example that shows how this system can fail spectacularly, and it's all based in how we manage the topsoil, a natural resource just like oil or water.
we lost the moment we tried to overcome natural systems with chemicals (we've had a good run but i believe it's gonna be an anomaly in history). you can use science + natural systems in your favor to grow food. taking care of the topsoil is objective number one. food is a byproduct of good soil. the soil is a living system and chemicals kill that ecosystem to our detriment.
technology is definitely not the answer here. you are welcome to go try to grow food on mars without soil. good luck!
> and as Smil points out there are plenty of places where land being farmed industrially is gaining soil.
i would bet at least $100 this happens where they do cover crops and actually manage the soil as a resource to be preserved
Herbicide is a whole different discussion and probably too deep a rabbit hole so far down thread.
[1] https://nebraskacorn.gov/cornstalk/corn101/what-is-no-till-f...
Andrew Wilson, who works with the United Nations World Food Program, also made an in-depth minidoc on them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86gyW0vUmVs
> Which is why Mexico City is now facing a severe water crisis
No it isn't. Mexico city has over extracted ground water for domestic and industrial use and is facing a drought, that's why they have a water crisis. It has nothing to do with the Spanish in the 17th century.
You're spouting a lot of a historical nonsense in this thread.
The unfortunate case for the wild population, is that they naturally inhabit a location which today has one of the highest human population densities in the world, and hence massive pressure on water resources. We could probably quite easily re-establish a breeding population in remote areas in Europe but would constitute an invasive species and hence wouldn't happen.
As a species, they are not endangered due to their very large populations now in the pet trade (though these then get inbred, become domesticated etc).
I don't really expect to find endangered species at the local pet store.
They are common in scientific research as they have amazing regenerative abilities; they will often mistakenly bite each other's legs off as juveniles (they are not the smartest creatures) and then grow them back in a few weeks, good as new. They made it into the exotic pet trade and now they are quite common in captivity, but now critically endangered in the wild. There are attempts to breed and repopulate them, with some limited success.
Another interesting thing, in many countries and states it is legal to keep an axolotl and illegal to keep a Salamander.
They are actually fairly easy to keep in my experience, with two caveats. 1) you need to be able to keep the water below 24 Deg C, this means spending some money on chillers even in sub-tropical countries. 2) If you have a pair in the same tank (regardless of sexing) you need to be prepared to cull the eggs! (freeze them) Prices here went from ~$50NZ each down to around $10-15 each due to the Minecraft craze.
(in reality probably the law banning them as pets to protect them didn't include axolotls because the legislature didn't know they existed)
Those are just two reasons, but I'd bet they cover a lot of cases.
Do you also find it strange that e.g. various wolves are/have been considered endangered even though dogs exist?
I suppose it's because we assume "endangered in the wild" means something that doesn't breed well in captivity and so is hard to reintroduce.
Edit: oh the article says as much
> Axolotls as pets have seen a surge in popularity in recent years after they were introduced to video games such as Minecraft and Roblox.
Also, the child seems quite familiar with the wildlife
> She said Evie was "always finding things" like newts and bugs, but said the axolotl discovery was a surprise.
What's even funnier is the mother's reaction who apparently didn't believe axolotl's were real
> "I've been telling Evie all this time that those creatures she watches on YouTube, they're not real.
> This is because they have the same environmental, dietary and behavioural needs in captivity as they do in the wild.
I thought this was just odd. Don’t most animals that aren’t heavily domesticated like that? I mean that’s true of most all pet fish, for example.
And then there's the water temp thing, that caught me off-guard and I was using frozen water bottles for a few weeks until my chiller arrived, if the tank had been located in a different part of the house it might have been required.
I think people anticipate needing heaters for certain types of fish, but I'd never have expected to buy a cooling unit for aquatic life.
Aquarium circ pumps can probably be powered directly by 12VDC? That would make sense if it’s only $50 for battery backup.
This is a really strange side comment, lol. I guess the mom doesn’t believe in some animals?
> “Cadwallader” comes from the Welsh/Briton from Cadwaladr, meaning “battle leader” or “warrior” (cad ”battle” + gwaladr “leader/ruler”). The name dates back to the 7th century, notably held by King Cadwaladr of Gwynedd.
Mexican axolotl, 10, finds rare Girl under Welsh bridge.
In the Spanish of the 1490s and early 1500s, there was a "SH" sound, spelled with X, the same way there is today in other Iberian languages like Portuguese, Galician, Catalan, or Basque. They got to Mexico and wrote many indigenous words with "SH" sounds (like "Mexico" and "axolotl") with X. Shortly after this, the pronunciation shifted to the modern Spanish J sound (which in much of the Spanish speaking world is like the CH in loch, but in some countries is like an H sound).
For those who are curious enough, this article explains the evolution of the Spanish sibilants and why our languages uses J and Z in a very different way from pretty much any other language:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_Spanis...
[ɬ] voiceless alveolar lateral fricative [0]
in a sufficient fluent manner (except you happen to speak e.g. Welsh, there the sound is written as ll so by happenstance the "axolotl" found in Wales can be pronounced fluently by the Welsh) otherwise you are saying it half correct which is arguably worse.
So let the nahuatl speaking people have a laugh at your expense for pronouncing it the germanic way or if you want to go unnoticed do it the evolved spanish romanic way, a good middle ground I guess.
Anyway I think it is generally a lot fun to hear words pronounced "wrong" by foreigners or having trouble hearing/pronouncing it "right" respectively heavy accents are hilarious icebreakers (:
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_dental_and_alveolar_...
The Welsh or Icelandic "ll" is not quite the same. That's a "voiceless lateral fricative", lacking the alveolar break that earned it the "t" in "tl" for the Latinized spelling. It's much closer than most languages get, but it is a different sound.
The Nahuatl consonant is a "voiceless alveolar lateral affricate". It is a single constant represented with [tɬ] or, more correctly, with a tie bar between those two glyphs: [t͡ɬ].
To get back to the original point though if I'm not mistaken again in standard mexican spanish /ʃ/ as a phoneme is lost entirely and only appears in the affricative /t͡ʃ/? So in all likelihood the original /ʃ/ in axolotl would be pronounced by way of habit as [t͡ʃ] (unless again you have say a argentinian dialect where e.g. "ll" (/ʝ/) in llamar is pronounced as [ʃ]) if you try to "correct" mexican spanish speakers.
(britannica[0], merriam-webster[1])
[0]: https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/audio?word=va%2Alet...
Including this case! México is still pronounced with the "sh" in Portuguese :)
I feel like axolotl fits in that category as it’s a commonly known animal in the English speaking world, that has a common pronounciation remarkedly different from the language it came from.
Loan words going from English -> Asian languages like Thai and Japanese such as “beer” becoming “beeru” fit the same vein.
I'm a southerner and we generally have squirrels in plentiful quantities, so it's never occurred to me to sell them. /s
The misconception is that words enter "a language" and not individual people's minds. Most English speakers have never heard the word "axolotl" spoken in its original pronunciation, nor are they familiar with the orthography that spells a "sh" with X.
>Spanish, which doesn't have ʃ (although interestingly, it was just in the process of losing that sound in the early 17th century).
I don't know about 17th century, but some dialects of Spanish certainly do have that sound now.
>Otherwise, what are you going to do with Xochimilco?
In English, X at the start of a word is typically pronounced like a Z, as in "Xanadu", "Xanax", and "xylophone". I don't think anyone would bat an eye if you read it as "Zochimilco".
And there's Xitter, of course, which is a fairly common way of referring to the social network formerly known as Twitter.
Sorry, what? First, is the word "Xérès" well-known among English-speakers? Second, "México" isn't pronounced "méshico", so how is it a supporting argument at all?
If pronouncing Xochimilco according to English orthographic conventions is important to you as a matter of principle, then of course you can do it. But it’s a Mexican place name that has a canonical pronunciation that is not difficult for English speakers to approximate, so I can’t really see the point.
(And yes, ʃ does exist in some modern dialects of Spanish, but those aren’t the dialects that would influence the pronunciation of Spanish to English loan words in most cases. The interesting thing is that this was much less obviously the case in the early 1600s. Apparently the exact origin of ‘chocolate’ in Spanish is a bit of a complex historical linguistic puzzle.)
No, not to me. I speak Spanish natively, but even I don't know how to say that. My first guess would be "Jochimilco", but I'd have to look it up (I'm not going to). I'm just saying that having Xs in weird places would not stop an English speaker from inventing a "wrong" pronunciation on the spot.
>But it’s a Mexican place name that has a canonical pronunciation that is not difficult for English speakers to approximate, so I can’t really see the point.
"Mexico" itself is also not difficult for English speakers to approximate, yet they don't. Clearly approximating the local pronunciation is not how foreign speakers decide how to pay toponyms, and that's fine. That's how languages are shaped.
My point is just that it makes no sense to get hung up on speakers not pronouncing loanwords "correctly". If we're going down this path, we should also complain that Spanish speakers write "fútbol" instead of "football", and that tea is called "tea" instead of "cha" and spelled "荼". We should demand that words be crystallized in their pronunciation and orthography when they cross language barriers.
When a pronunciation is already widespread, yes. "Axolotl" is not some new word; lots of people know the animal and call it "aksolotl". If we were talking about, say, some obscure Chinese village that suddenly became very relevant in the English-speaking world, I would not insist to pronounce the pinyin spelling of its name as if it was an English word.
The thing about script and type is they only really work by prior agreement.
There is a set of marks on the page that we all agree on "is" an axolotl. How we choose to say that out loud is up to the individual. On the other hand, if we were to converse with you directly ... vocally ... then you could tell us how you say the name and if we were convinced that you were at least Mexican, we might follow your lead.
Script, type and sounds rarely match up precisely, ever.
I live in a town called Yeovil (Somerset, UK). I have a mug with at least 65 different spellings of the name over the last ~1900 odd years. It started off as Gifle "bend in the river" in a Saxon language. We have had a "great vowel shift" in "english" and three different varieties of "english" noted since then, just in these parts, let alone elsewhere.
The place name was spelt as Evil or Euil for a while! No-one batted an eyelid because the concept of the grammar nazi was a long way in the future and spelling was pretty random in general. Ivel, Ivol, Givelle and many more have been documented.
Please record how you say the name and make it available. Fiddling with text will never cut it.
Axolotls are somewhat popular as pets so I’m thinking someone got rid of theirs by tossing it in the river and the girl just happened to find it afterwards.
Far more plausible explanation than “found in the wild 9000km and an ocean away from its place of origin”
They are hyper adapted to the water cycles, nutrient profile, and pH levels of the Xochimilco lake system in Mexico city and were taken care of by indigenous people for thousands of years. They have never survived anywhere outside of these lakes
Having said that there are surely a lot of factors that would make its survival impossible in wales given how hard it is for them to survive in their original ecosystems.
The historic range of the axolotl was indeed a bit wider than the current lakes beneath Mexico City, but not that much wider
2. Axolotls can't survive in a Welsh climate. This creature will live much longer as a pet than it would in the wild.
one example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382147531_Chronicle...
They are closely related enough that there's some evidence of hybridization but they are separate species. A. velasci is not endangered.
I don't think it is interesting to argue if there is one axolotl that is more important than the others, even if the one from Xochimilco has the particularity of staying in its larval state.
https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/62130287/53974804
I'm not arguing one is more important than the other but only one of them is critically endangered and only one of them is a powerful cultural indigenous symbol.
Ambystoma velasci is also an "actual" salamander. The unique thing about the axolotl is that it never goes to the stage where it leaves the water. It is the only salamander species known to do this.
Especially with 8 billion humans wandering around.
