Talk:Felidae/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question

From the article introduction:

The first felids emerged during the early Eocene, about 40 million years ago, and the family reached its greatest diversity during the Oligocene.

Is this correct? According to my sources the first cats emerged in the Oligocene, and the greatest diversity was reached late in the Pliocene. We appear to disagree again, Tannin ;-) So, what is right? -- Cordyph 20:32 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Both of us, I think. :) A quick double check on Google seems to confirm the Eocene, Cordyph, with various links, but I am not so sure about the period of greatest diversity. Walker's Mammals of the World (1993) says: The geological range of the Felidae is late Eocene to Recent in North America and Eurasia, early Eocene to Recent in Africa, and late Pliocene to Recent in South America.

My phrasing was a little loose: my source was really talking about extinctions after the Oligocene and was a bit vague, so I suggest that you change the diversity statement. Best -- Tannin — Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 18 July 2003

Yes, you are right. Actually there were cats in the Eocene, Eofelis and Aelurogale. So the article about Proailurus claiming this genus to be the oldest known feline appears to be wrong. -- Cordyph 09:25 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

One more question: what does "fossile" mean? I thought that was a typo, intended to be "fossil". Tannin — Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 18 July 2003‎

Apologies Tannin, I am not a native English speaker, and I did not know, that "fossil" is the correct spelling. I have missed, that you had corrected the error before. - Cordyph 09:40 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Query: what's the justification for splitting Felidae into so many genera? Most texts that I know only accept four genera: Felis, Neofelis, Panthera and Acinonyx, with all the other genera listed here as synonyms of Felis, except for Uncia, included in Panthera. - MPF 23:56, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Aelurogale and Eofelis seems to be Nimravids, not Felids. Ater The Big cats and their fossil relatives, Proailurus was the first genus of true cats.--Altaileopard 11:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

evolution

For a long time it was not clear how the current feline species were related to each other. Recent molecular evidence have shown how the cats are probably related. According to the findings, all modern cats can be devided into three 'stocks': the first containing the genera Oncifelis, Oreailurus, Leopardus en Herpailurus. The second containing the genera Felis, Otocolobus Profelis and Prionailurus. We find all larger cats in the third stock, containing the big-cat genera Panthera, Uncia and Neofelis, and also Lynx, Caracal, Puma and Catopuma. Even genera with small species are part of this group: Pardofelis, but also Leptailurus.

The cheetah's are placed in a seperate sub-family, the Acinonychinae. But they are much closer related to the other cats then previously thought. They probably descended from Lynx-like ancestors.

And why did you place the pantherine cats in a seperate sub-family? I thought that the cats were originaly divided into the subfamilies Acinonychinae and Felinae, and that the many cat genera were divided into the Felini and Pantherini supergenera.

How do you think about this? Maybe you can explain more about the evolution of cats with this information? English is not my own language, so I am reluctant to edit pages directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damatrix (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 May 2004‎ (UTC)

answer to "evolution"

You should just edit the pages. English is not my native language either, but I am editing anyway. I know that my edits contain many spelling and grammar flaws, but they can be corrected by anyone who's language is English. At least that's what I presume.

The 'stocks' you are talking about is just one of many results from molecular and DNA analysis. More recent, and more advanced, studies show a different picture. I've added that to the article as 'Alternative classification'. They include Lynx in the Panthera clade, but show that Caracal is not a Lynx, and thus not a Pantherine - Catopuma is neither. Catopuma is allied with Herpailurus, which is a very close relative to Puma. Leopardus and other South-American felids form a sister group to all other cats. There is a study, however, that excludes Lynx and Pardofelis all together from Pantherini and ally the Leopardini with the Pantherines. This is disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaMatriX (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 October 2005‎ (UTC)

Tiger Image Caption

The original text stated, "the largest and most powerful of the cats", this is incorrect. The liger is larger than the tiger, and thus the largest living cat. I have changed the caption to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lengis (talk • contribs) 21:22, 29 December 2005‎ (UTC)

Yes you are correct,

Female Ligers are fertile and have produced young that have grown to full maturaty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.201.16 (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2006‎

Not naturally occuring, removed. BNS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.128.208 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2006‎

Vandalism

You have no idea how hard it was to resist changing the opening line from

Lions, tigers, cats and other felines are members of the family Felidae.

to

Lions, tigers, and bears are members of the family Felidae (oh my!).

What stopped me was that this would be vandalism, but still, I had to get it out of my system somewhere, so here I am. --Cyde Weys 16:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Your comment is now preserved for posterity at BJAODN. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Feline-Hominid genetic similarity

I tagged this article {{contradict-other}} because of the section on the degree of genetic similarity between humans and felines. This information contradicts the information listed in the Mammal article, as well as the information listed in any of the mammal classification systems. Even if this information was in the National Geographic issue listed as a reference, we have come quite some ways in evaluting genetic similarities/differences since 1997. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the genetic similarity thing contadicts both common sense and about everything we know about evolution. Such a revolutionary claim should have a little better reference than NG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user

This information is contained in one of the molecular biology essays a book called Carnivore Behavior, Ecology and Evolution. Stretches of DNA are similar in Old World primates and felids. Hypothetically retroviruses could "jump" from species to species across family tree lines and insert new DNA into the host genome. I don't have the book with me, but I'd advise checking the source. 153.2.247.33 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

i read the same NG article, and it was to some great degree informed by dr. o'brien's cancer institute research. as best as i can translate my own understanding of it, the similarity it refers to was a structural one rather than a gene-for-gene likeness (as with our own chromosomal make-up and those of our nearest living relatives in the Hominidae), e.g., the actual physical location of the various homologous genes of both ape and felid have been highly conserved from our nearest shared ancestor. (as soon as i find a cited statement that this is in fact the case, i will most certainly add it to the entry.) - Metanoid (talk, email) 01:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Edited the picture in taxobox

I edited the image and name of the tiger. It now correctly displays the largest of the Felidae family, the Amur (or Siberian) Tiger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulever989 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 October 2006‎ (UTC)

IMPO the picture should show the most typical cat, not the largest. Wolfview (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Science article

They estimated that 60 percent of the modern species of cats developed within the last million years.[1]

I was unable to read the full article, but the National Geogrpahic article does not mention this fact. The last 11 million years perhaps, but not 1 million. Does someone have the original article to verify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.162.64.118 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2006‎

Updating Carnivora, starting with Feliformia

I will be updating the Carnivora taxa articles shortly, to match the listing in MSW3. I have previously updated many of the other mammalian orders in this way. However, I see there is plenty of disagreement in the taxonomy. I will try to use a gentle touch in editing the articles. However I thought it prudent to post here my intentions. You can also see the MSW3 taxonomy at User:UtherSRG/Carnivora. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

41 species vs. 36 species

IUCN lists 36 species under felidae family, but this page lists 41. In IUCN, some of the species which are listed here are actually shown to be subspecies of some other species. So, what should be done in this regard and moreover the reference for the number (41 species) has not been provided? DSachan 00:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is listed in the article in both the taxobox and the species listing. The reference is Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition, November 2005. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are only 40 cat species, because Felis silvestris includes the domestic cat. The rest of the difference (40 vs. 36 species) is due to the split of the Pampas cat into 3 species (L. braccatus, L. colocolo und L. pajeros) and the Lynx in 3 distinct species (Lynx canadensis, Lynx lynx, Lynx pardinus).--Altaileopard 15:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

41. Felis catus is valid according to ICZN. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, how do you know this. For example the following Paper (Ettore Randi: Genetic Identification of Wild and Domestic Cats (Felis silvestris) and Their Hybrids Using Bayesian Clustering Methods 2001) says:

"Randi and Ragni (1991) recommended that Felis silvestris Schreber, 1777, be regarded as a single polytypic species with three wild subspecies, the African (Felis silvestris libyca), European (Felis silvestris silvestris), and Asian (Felis silvestris ornata) wildcats, and a domesticated form (Felis silvestris catus) originating from north African and Near Eastern African wildcat populations (Wozencraft 1993 ; Clutton-Brock 1999 ). "

Newer papers handle it in the same way and when I remember right in walkers mammals of the world it is also called Felis silvestris catus. Greetings--Altaileopard 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Walkers is old. MSW3 is current. It lists Felis catus as a full species separate from F. silvestris, and indicates that if catus were included in silvestris, then (if I'm reading it all correctly) because silvestris is more closely related to margarita and because catus is sister group to lybica, then silvestris would become invalid. (The comments are spread throughout Felis, Felis catus and Felis silvestris, but regardless, F. catus is listed separately, and we should follow MSW3 unless and until something is published afterward showing the majority opinion is something else.) - UtherSRG (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will look for a paper which definitely says, that the domesticated cat is included in Felis silvestris. In the meantime we follow MSW. But i don´t understand what you wnat to say with margarita, and lybica... silvestris would not be invalid, because lybica is definitely just subspecies. --Altaileopard 09:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

According to ITIS [1], Felis catus is the correct genus and species. Ajwenger (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

According to ICZN Opinion 2027 the domesric cat is called Felis silverstris.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)--Altaileopard (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ups: silvestris!--Altaileopard (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, it doesn't. See the discussion on talk:cat. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the list on this page, I only notice 40 species. I hope you're not counting the iriomote cat as a separate species. --Jay72091 10:32, 9 july 2012 CST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay72091 (talk • contribs)

characteristics

i'm sending out a wish to the gods of wikipedia: shouldn't this article have a section on the characteristics of this family? what makes an animal a cat? best, reethers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reethers (talk • contribs).

So go ahead and research the info you are looking for, and write it into the article. There's no gods here. We're all just editors, me and you alike. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go. I've listed my source in the general references, but people will probably want to add more specific in-line refs to improve the article. Anaxial 21:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Genera

I propose a merger of the genera Caracal, Leptailurus and Profelis into one genus Caracal. The same can be done with the genera Pardofelis and Profelis into one genus Pardofelis. This will be according to the latest genetic assessment, performed by Johnson et al: "The Late Miocene radiation of Modern Felidae: A genetic assessment", which is well supported. DaMatriX 19:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gimme a week or so to contact the author of the appropriate section of MSW3 and see what they have to say. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, thank you! You can also ask them about the inclusion of Uncia in Panthera (?) DaMatriX 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Too bad we don't control the official taxonomy...Eriorguez 15:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be changed back to how it was. According to the official taxonomy listed in ITIS (http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=552456), serval is still in the genus Leptailurus. Changing it like you did DaMatriX is just confusing and inaccurate because you don't even provide references to anything that says that the taxonomy was changed. Stormish 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did provide a reference: "The Late Miocene radiation of Modern Felidae: A genetic assessment" [[2]] DaMatriX 15:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Felidae → Felines — As stated by Alai at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/October/29, the page should be renamed for uniformity - the category name is Category:Felines. —Od Mishehu 08:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• oppose - Technically, only one half of the family are felines. the other half are pantherines. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, but move to feline rather than felines as article names for Wikipedia are in the singular form. Voortle 19:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with UtherSRG that this has the disadvantage of not being what the word 'feline' means, and therefore misleading. Anaxial 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was originally going to support but UtherSRG makes a good point. Reginmund 19:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renewing the proposal, together with the alternative

Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats#Move proposal for name uniformity. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Felines?

hope this doesn't seem extraordinarily silly, but bear with me. given that the two extant subfamilies of the Felidae would technically be referred to as "pantherines" (Pantherinae) and "felines" (Felinae), should the caption of the taxobox really be labeled "Felines" (as it is currently)? - Metanoid (talk, email) 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the unfortunate thing that is the English language. "Felines" to the general population means what "felids" means to scientists, who understand "felines" to mean it as you said. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

exactly! hehe. - Metanoid (talk, email) 01:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC) and now that i think for a moment, the same holds for the Canidae, hmm. - Metanoid (talk, email) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

and now i see the discussion above on the very same topic. -Metanoid (talk, email) 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

weird that "Felidae is the biological family of the cats; a member of this family is called a felid", but the taxobox is labeled "Felines", as if members of the family were not, in fact, to be called "felids". yep, veeeerrry interesting, that. almost -- well -- contradictory? hmmm. - Metanoid (talk, email) 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a better English term: "cats". 66.215.21.7 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lokontailurus?

I can find no reference to the genus lokontailurus outside of this article, the Machairodontinae article and a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors around the web. Does anyone have any idea where it came from? Swiftwindcat (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Go back and look at Machairodontinae. The inclusion of the genus is referenced there. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the info I added to the article about this genus is from Alan Turner & Mauricio Anton: Evolving Eden. An Illustrated Guide to the Evolution of the African Large-Mammal Fauna. Columbia University Press, New York, 2004. ISBN 0-231-11944-5--Altaileopard (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Solitary?

The article states "Aside from the Lion, they are solitary." Is this still considered accurate? I'm pretty sure a number of cat species hunt in groups (esp. juvinile males). I've also read a few things recently that document social structures in feral domestic cats, well beyond just all hanging around the same food source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.197.155 (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

pantherinae/felinae

i am slightly confused as to the subfamily of the marbled cat (pardofelis marmorata). the split seems to be fairly split on articles either one way or the other (although i saw one that said blood tests said it was pantherinae). is there a definitive article that decides it one way or the other? and if there is some confusion, is it right that it should be listed as felinae rather than pantherinae?

edit - specifically, a protein database suggests that they belong to pantherinae... http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/61409 Ivo herries (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The source cited in the article is MSW3, which places them in Felinae. I'm reluctant to use a citation to 'support' a fact (in this case the taxonomic list) when the source cited actually says that the fact is false. I'd suggest we simply add a sentence saying "recent biochemical research suggests that Pardofelis may belong to the Pantherinae", or something to that effect, providing the citation you give above, and leave the main list alone, since it is still (as far as I know) the standard accepted taxonomy. Anaxial (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC) edited for correctness - UtherSRG (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Classification

The preamble to the table stated there were three subfamilies, but the table grouped the Cheetah in with subfamily Felidae. I've separated it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojomoke (talk • contribs) 14:56, 15 March 2009‎ (UTC)

Proailurus?

Fossil felids section mentions Proailurus as the oldest known true felid, while the description of Proailurus itself is doubtful about it and lists the felid (a true cat) version as one of the two possible.

Maybe it's better not to mention it in this article while it's not clear enough, or to mention it as a possible oldest known true felid :) What do you think?

Note: It has really confused me as a reader of this article.

92.114.167.126 (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right. I changed the sentence into "The probably oldest known true felid (Proailurus)". Now I think of it, is that correct English? Or should it be "Probably, the oldest known true felid is Proailurus"? I'm not a native speaker of English ;) DaMatriX (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The latter is certainly better grammatically, although it is still ambiguous as to the reason for the qualification (that is, as to whether they may be older ones, rather than Proailurus not necessarily being a felid). Anaxial (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy change?

The genus Catopuma has been merged with Pardofelis, according to several sources (such as the IUCN Red List 2009.1). These sources also merge the genus Profelis with Caracal. Perhaps we should change the taxonomy list (classification) in this article? DaMatriX (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Name change?

I was just wondering whether the biological family ‘Felidae’ – among others that have ‘ae’ in it – should be named ‘Felidæ’. LarsJanZeeuwRules (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

While all biological families of animal have 'idae' in them, I've never seen the use of the ligature in modern texts - although I assume it was the original form back in the day. So there's no convincing reason to use it in this encyclopædia :) Anaxial (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Modern scholarship never uses the ligature. I believe there is an article in the Code that provides that zoological names can only consist of the letters of the Latin alphabet (A-Z). Ucucha 19:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Feline "Righting Reflex"

Currently, the article reads "Most felids are able to land on their feet after a fall..." I feel this wording is clumsy and unspecific. Most creatures (including humans) can land on their feet after a fall, but cats are particularly adept at "righting" themselves while falling so as to land on their feet, a behavior often called instinctive or reflexive. It's the ability to flip upright during the fall, not necessarily the ability to land on the feet that is a notable characteristic of cats. I would briefly note that cats tend to gyrate their spines and back feet to accomplish righting, and that cats have demonstrated the ability to survive falls or jumps from very great heights with little or no injury by landing on their feet. Perhaps a link to the "cat righting reflex" page?

I suggest a wording like this: "Most felids display an uncanny ability to land on their feet after a fall. During a fall, a cat will reflexively gyrate its spine, tail and limbs to flip upright. This so-called ""Righting Reflex"" significantly reduces a cat's chances of sustaining injury from a fall from great height." 65.191.125.142 (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Purring

The present writer has heard a leopard purring. The article seems to treat this as a possiblity. The wording is vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Cats can't chew? Riiiight... Throw one a chicken neck and see for yourself

For those with doubts, throw a cat a raw chicken neck and see (and HEAR!)it grind that thing down into dust. Also, if the cat just happens to eat too much and get sick or be passing a hairball, you'll see that the chicken neck is very much chewed into veeeeery fine pieces that most resemble chewed cereal. And that's something that used to be bone, too. 208.127.80.59 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Classification

The article currently states

"The last four lineages (5, 6, 7, 8) are more related to each other than to any of the first four (1, 2, 3, 4), and so form a clade within the Felinae subfamily of family Felidae."

However, the Felinae article includes all lineages except 1. Was this a mistake during editing this article? 71.198.245.225 (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Lineage 1 (Pantherinae) is a subfamily of Felidae, like Felinae is. It has its own article. --Seduisant (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Number of Species

I know there have been discussions about the number of species, but it seems there is still no sense of agreement. Is there a recognised 'authority' in the scientific world that says what the official (majority) consensus viewpoint is at a specific time?

At present, as pointed out by Jay72091 on 9 July 2012, there is a discrepancy in the number of species. While the article header says 41 species, the list only shows 40 species (although the Iriomote Cat is listed, it is only shown as a subspecies of the Leopard Cat). [Interestingly, the 'Carnivora' page says there are only 40 species].

Whatever basis is used for producing a species list should also be used for the number of species; it is ridiculous to do it any other way: and such obvious discrepancies, at least to me, would incline me to doubt the accuracy of the rest of the article. If there are differing views, for example the latest research by one team suggests that brown bears actually should comprise 3 separate species or that a expedition has discovered a new species of otter on New Guinea, then comments should be added in both the header section and the species list. If the scientific community later accepts these amendments, then the article should be amended accordingly.

I checked MSW3 today and note that, while it shows the Iriomote Cat as a separate species, it still only lists 40 species! [The difference being the Sunda Clouded Leopard, which, according to its own wiki article, was upgraded to a species in 2006]Glevum (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Prehistory

The article currently states:

The first felids emerged during the Oligocene, about 25 million years ago. In prehistoric times, a third subfamily, known as Machairodontinae, included the "saber-toothed cats", such as the well known Smilodon.

Wait what? So in prehistory Machairodontinae included saber cats, but nowadays thatsubfamily does not? I'm guessing the intended meaning was to say that Felidae used to include a third subfamily, but now it does not (since Machairodontinae is extinct). Or something - since I'no expert I'm leaving this in your capable hands. CapnZapp (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Comparison image

Something that would really benefit this article would be a silhouetted at-scale comparison of the size of some of these cats. — Scott • talk 20:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Snow Leopard

Isn't the Snow Leopard now part of the Panthera genus?Pedro8410 (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Right you are, Pedro. Moved to Panthera. Thanks.--Seduisant (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Exotic felines as pets should be merged here. I don't see why it needs a separate article. WannaBeEditor (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is small at the moment, but I already asked other people in the field to contribute (e. g. on topics like husbandry and legality). When it is fully developed, it should be comprehensive enough to warrant its own article. --— Preceding signed comment added by Serval5412 (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Serval5412 - I did not say that the article is not comprehensive, I just think that the appropriate place to discuss felines as pets is in Felidae. WannaBeEditor (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand. However, I plan to add sections on things like nutrition, housing and legality that would make the content too large for being a subsection of Felidae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serval5412 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

See the discussion above, I would like to merge, original author disagrees, no one else commented. I am not sure how to proceed. WannaBeEditor (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The appropriate next step is to initiate a Request for Comment if the differences can't be worked out. —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 06:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Serval5412 - Just before I start an rfc as was suggested to me above, I would like to discuss it with you one more time. The page Exotic felines as pets is only 5,000 bytes. Merging it to Felidae which has 33,000 bytes will not result in a too long page per WP:SPLIT. Please explain if you have any other reason not to merge. Thanks, WannaBeEditor (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason I am against it is that I planned the article to be much larger and more detailed, as I explained above. I tried to find co-editors in this field, but so far no one has stepped up. However, I will attempt to raise support again and the resulting edits would easily add enough content to warrant a stand-alone article. Merging it now would be just unnecessary work that I would have to reverse later by splitting it up again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serval5412 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Error in classification?

In the section "Scientific Classification": Suborder: canidae

Isn't it wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urquan8 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted; should be fixed now.—Odysseus1479 09:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"Shaubia" redirects me to "Eremotherium." I am pretty sure that ground sloths are not cats. Sea Captain Cormac 01:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

Number and Names of Cat Species

38 species Comment

Per this source [3] there are 38 species of wildcats.

Wild Cats of the World: The Full List of Species

Chinese Mountain Cat, Felis bieti; Wildcat, Felis libyca/silvertris/ornata/catus; Black-footed Cat, Felis nigripes; Sand Cat, Felis margarita; Jungle Cat, Felis chaus; Pallas’s Cat, Otocolobus manul; Leopard Cat, Prionailurus bengalensis; Flat-headed Cat, Prionailurus planiceps; Rusty-spotted Cat, Prionailurus rubiginosus; Fishing Cat, Prionailurus viverrinus; Marbled Cat, Pardofelis marmorata; Bay Cat, Catopuma badia; Asian Golden Cat, Catopuma temminckii; Serval, Leptailurus serval; Caracal, Caracal caracal; African Golden Cat, Profelis aurata; Geoffroy’s Cat, Leopardus geoffroyi; Oncillas Leopardus tigrinus and Leopardus guttulus; Margay Leopardus wiedii; Ocelot, Leopardus pardalis; Guiña, Leopardus guigna; Colocolo, Leopardus colocolo; Andean Cat, Oreailurus jacobita; Eurasian Lynx, Lynx lynx; Spanish Lynx, Lynx pardinus; Bobcat, Lynx rufus; Canada Lynx, Lynx canadensis; Jaguarundi, Herpailurus yagouaroundi; Puma, Puma concolor; Cheetah, Acinonyx jubatus; Snow Leopard, Uncia uncia; Clouded leopards, Neofelis nebulosa and Neofelis diardi; Tiger, Panthera tigris; Lion, Panthera leo; Leopard, Panthera pardus; Jaguar, Panthera once.

--CuriousMind01 (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

So, I believe what you're actually saying is that you'd like to see the Chinese mountain cat listed here as a full species and the Pampas cat and Pantanal cat listed as subspecies only? There is certainly some debate over the exact taxonomic rank of these cats, although I think we might need more supporting references to confirm the exact status of the debate, and what the most widely recognised scheme is currently. Although I also note that the page on the Chinese mountain cat contradicts with this one, and I'd argue that the two should at least be brought into line (one way or the other). Anaxial (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

By my count that listing for the book gives 36 or 41. It has 36 entries in the table of contents, but has four species names under the wildcat and two each for the clouded leopards and oncillas. Unlike Wozencraft (2005) in the Wilson and Reeder's Mammal Species of the World the number doesn't include the iriomote cat, and doesn't split the Pampas cat, but splits clouded leopards and oncillas. There is more than one way to skin this particular cat.

I think it is a mistake to state a definitive number for the number of cat species. The taxonomic listing section doesn't match the stated source (Wozencraft/Wilson and Reeder) or the 42/41 mentioned earlier in the article (where the discussion of the Ireomote cat seems out of place). Given the recent splitting proposals for clouded leopards (accepted), oncillas (accepted, but number uncertain), Pampas cats (debated) and tiger (ignored), along with the perpetual inconsistency over the wildcat, this perhaps should be discussed briefly at the beginning of the taxonomy section. Then the listing can be given according to the preferred choice (Wozencraft/Wilson and Reeder) with variations mentioned. Also a less dogmatic approach avoids inconsistencies between articles as long as sources for divisions and statements are given. Jts1882 (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Luke Hunter's Wild Cats of the World is previewed on Amazon and includes the wildcat section. It is clearly counted as one species. I'm not sure why the listing in the National Geographic review has four species names under wildcat. The contents page in Luke Hunter's book doesn't, so the book is clear in going for 38 species.

I've been looking at the history and there has been a general historical consensus for 36 species, with either the domestic cat or Chinese Mountain cat as the 36th (both are otherwise included in the wildcat). Some authorities give a few more, sometimes splitting the wild cats (up to 5 species), including the Iriomote cat, or splitting the Pampas cat (into three). None of these seem justified on genetic evidence. The recent work splitting the clouded leopard and oncilla seem to have been generally accepted, which brings us to the 38 in Luke Hunter's book. The count of 40 in Wilson and Reeder's Mammals of the World is a bit of an outlier, although this has been more or less adopted as the Wikipedia standard and matches the articles in Wikipedia. The next edition should be out relatively soon (based on gaps between previous editions) and I wouldn't be surprised if they revise it to 38. I'm going to modify the taxonomy section to indicate the differences of opinion with citations, but I won't remove the "species" with articles from the listing. Jts1882 (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

New IUCN Specialist Cat Group taxonomy

The IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group has produced a revised taxonomy of the Felidae. This is the first major revision since Wozencraft (2005). The key features are an increase the number of species to 41 and a substantial reduction in number of subspecies (e.g. the tiger to two). As for the species, the Sunda clouded leopard and two oncilla species are recognised as expected. Mirroring the clouded leopard division, a Sunda leopard cat is recognised, with the suggestion that a second marbled cat could follow. The Pampas cat division is rejected for now in favour of a division into 7 subspecies. Perhaps the biggest surprise is the splitting of the wildcat complex into four species (silvestris, lybica, catus, bieti).

A summary of the changes can be found here and the list of the Cat Groups revisions here. The full report is only available to subscribers unfortunately. Jts1882 (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The Revised Taxonomy of the Felidae is now available online from the Smithsonian Library. It's not available on the Cat Specialist Group website, but I assume the Smithsonian has permission.

It is a very nicely prepared document, co-authored by most of the big names in the felid field (those missing are well represented by collaborators). The formal taxonomy is organised with a structure following the lineages determined in the latest molecular phylogeny (Li et al, 2016). It summarises the previously accepted taxonomy and then makes a recommendation in a none dogmatic way, with clear reasoning that describes the evidence succinctly. There are also maps showing the distribution of the subspecies they recognise.

I think this document is as authoritative as possible as a source for cat taxonomy. The new MSW is due soon and I'd be very surprised if they don't follow this scheme for the most part.   Jts1882 | talk  12:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Cladogram

The cladogram is based on a particular molecular study (Johnson et al, 2006) and has a few inconsistencies with some of the cat articles on wikipedia. A number of changes should be made to reflect newer studies, but the changes need to be accompanied by specific references justifying the change the changes. For example, the second clouded leopard species, a rearrangement of inner Panthera species, and the arrangement of the wildcat complex species. This I intend to do when I have the full supporting evidence. Jts1882 (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Audi1merc2: I have reverted the change of name for the Pampas cat in the cladogram as this is not supported by molecular studies of the O'Brien group (Johnson et al, 2006). There is no reason to think the specimens used for the Pampas cat in their study were of the pajeros type, which would be needed to justify the change. The latest revision of the cat taxonomy by the IUCN Specialist Cat Group doesn't accept the division into three species, in part based on the work of the O'Brien group who failed to find molecular support for the three species division, so L. colocolo remains the correct name for the Pampas cat. Even if new evidence changes this conclusion, we would need to cite relevant studies to justify changes. Please share if you have any new information. Jts1882 (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate Range Map

The map included in the article clearly omits Vancouver Island and coastal BC for the range of felidae, yet Van Isle hosts one of the densest cougar populations on the planet. Would it be possible to include a more accurate map?

Somewhat inaccurate maps can happen, but I would at least welcome a new map on that, in that case. Leo1pard (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Skulls

Unfortunately for the tiger, issues for it include the fact that its maximum skull length (400 mm (16 in)) was surpassed by that of the lion (419 mm (16.5 in)). Leo1pard (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Now I have a record of 16.25 in (413 mm) for the tiger, but still. Leo1pard (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Why isn't this page named 'Cats'?

Common name and all. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Because there is another page called Cat. This page is about the taxonomic family Felidae, aka the cat family.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Scientific names

Please see this. Leo1pard (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no legend for the map?

I have no clue what the blue and green are for. 67.181.47.170 (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The description of the map says Range of Feliformia. Blue is the range of Felinae, green is the range of Pantherinae. The map is problematic. The green for Pantherinae looks incomplete. At first glance it looks to cover jaguar, lion and tiger, but the tiger has more presence in India and the lion more in South Africa. The leopard has a wider range than indicated in green. The blue covers a larger range than the Felinae (excluding domestic cat) and the Felinae range will also include most (if not all) the pantherine range. I think this map is unsuitable for this article as it shows neither the range of the Felidae, Felinae nor Pantherinae.   Jts1882 | talk  06:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The map in Pantherinae is also problematic for similar reasons. It's also not clear what the colours in the map in Felinae show.   Jts1882 | talk  06:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jts1882: (and the IP user, but pinging an IP after > 6 months seems like a bad idea): According to original image-creator Craig Pemberton's user page, wikipedia-range-maps on Github is where these live / are generated.

A map showing the range of a single given classification, I could understand. But the way this one is set up currently (a single combined map showing the range of the Felidae family's two extant subfamilies) seems confusing to me. It would seem to imply that there's no (geographical) overlap between the subfamilies. Which... sounds unlikely? I mean, IANABiologist, so maybe not. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the maps should be removed. As I said above they don't seem to show what they claim to show and, as you point out, they don't indicate the overlap. I was reluctant to remove a map without a replacement.   Jts1882 | talk  07:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Labels in Clade box?

I'm a little worried about those labels in the {{Clade}} box at § Phylogeny and whether they meet WCAG contrast standards. (I'm referring to the contrast between labels like "Lynx lineage", "Caracal lineage", etc. and their associated background colors.) But my main question is, why is "Domestic cat lineage" placed as a |footer= in its box, instead of a |caption= like all of the others? I'm tempted to be WP:BOLD and just change it, but it's so obviously a deliberate choice that I wanted to check whether there's some reason I don't know about for doing it this way. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You may have a point about the colours. Is there a way of checking if they cause a problem and should be removed. I created this diagram when testing the options in the module behind the {{clade}} template. There are a few other coloured ones (iirc, in Canidae, Hyaenidae, Mustidae) but I stopped making more because of this concern.

Each {{clade}} template in the schematic can only have one caption. The last pair of lineages are sisters in the same clade template so can only have one caption. All the others have further clade templates nested as the second child. If you want to use a caption for consistency, you could put the Felis lineage in a nested clade template with a single chiild, i.e. instead of |label2=Felis|2={{clade ... use |2={{clade|label1=Felis|1={{clade ... }}. This would lengthen the branch to the Felis bracket, but allow a caption.   Jts1882 | talk  08:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Classification table

Recently, BhagyaMani added a table to the Classification subsection, seemingly to show that the new List of felids was an unneeded fork. At this point, however, not only has List of felids been expanded to be more distinct from this article's list of species, but no effort has been made to correct what I see as flaws in the table in this article: that 1) it takes up a full half of the length of the article, overwhelming it, and 2) that it's a rather awkward table to begin with, with massive images and little detail. I think it should be reverted back to how it was on March 15- a straightforward bulleted list of species/lineages/genera, with a {{seealso}} link to List of felids for the full table with images. I don't want to edit war, so I'm starting a discussion instead. As both Jts1882 and Reywas92 have expressed opinions about the list/this table, I invite them to discuss as well assuming they're not watching this talk page. --PresN 02:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The table on this article does not look good, as it combines six fields into just three columns. The List of felids is much higher quality with more information. This article should be restored to the bulleted list of species as a summary style, with a {main} link to the list.

And what the heck are the colors? This version should be restored with a link to List of felids. Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the simpler list and throw to List of felids is the better option. The tabel list as is is overwhelming and while the colour matching between the table and phylogeny is clever it would only really work if you could see all of the data in a single page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)