Talk:Panthera spelaea

Cave lions: Subspecies of Panthera leo, or closely related species?

Normally a subspecies or species?

Herakles fought the Nemean Lion, a giant cave-dwelling Lion. Surely, this is a memory of the Ice Age Megabeast, the Cave Lion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

www.geo.auth.gr/12icbs/proceedings/tsoukala_et_al_2.pdf That publication seems good for clarifying things. It mentions that fossils of leopards of that era,not of cave lions, have been found in the area that could confirm any historic truth behind the myth (also clarifies that lion fossils from Peloponnesos are far too old and belong to P.leo fossilis not spelaea).--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear 195.229.242.53:

Your recent edit of this article produced the following sentence:

It is normally considered a subspecies of lion, with the scientific name of Panthera leo spelaeus (which means "cave lion" in Latin); but it is normally considered a species in its own right, under the name Panthera spelaeus.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? It's normally one, or it's normally the other. Not both, they're exclusive. Please clarify.

eritain 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Subspecies

There are three subspecies of lion, which are often called cave lion:

• American cave lion (P. l. atrox)
• Upper pleistocene cave lion (P. l. spelea)
• Early middle pleistocene cave lion (P. l. fossilis)

Which subspecies should be content of this site? I would prefer to limit this article strictly to P. l. spelea. Than I would create a lemma for Panthera leo fossilis. What would be a proper name for that side? In my view Early middle pleistocene cave lion is to long. Is Panthera leo fossilis good, or is it allowed to take the translation from the German Name "Mosbacher Löwe", perhaps like Mosbacher lion. -Altai 10:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Early middle pleistocene cave lion is indeed too long. I would use the scientific name. A recent source [1] names even 4 cave lions: Panthera leo fossilis (Early Middle Pleistocene European cave lion), Panthera leo vereshchagini (East Siberian and Beringian cave lion), Panthera leo atrox (North American cave lion), and the Panthera leo spelaea (Upper Pleistocene European cave lion). I would leave this lemma for the Cave lion Panthera leo spelaea. Peter Maas 11:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, you are right. I know this paper and actually it seems that there is at least one more subspecies: Panthera (leo) youngi. By the way: My sources say, that Panthera leo spelea was in genral a bit smaller, than it is described in this article. I think that is due to the confusion with Panthera leo fossilis, which was bigger than spelea. But I dont want to have a discussion like Talk:Tiger.

However; I also think, that the scientific name Pantehra leo fossilis is the most uncontroversial. So I will write this article soon.--Altaileopard 18:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The number of subspecies varies indeed. Sometimes these different lions are seen as full species or as subspecies of Panthera leo. I'm looking forward to the new lemma. (By the way, I already created a lemma for Panthera leo vereshchagini.) Peter Maas 10:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, fossilis is alive. Thanks for your vereshchagini. I have done an edit in Panthera leo vereshchagini as you may already have seen probably, but I am not shure if it was definitely right. Was vereshchagini really smaller than spelea?--Altaileopard 18:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Panterine"?

Recent edits have used this term instead of "lions". Can we have a source for this please? I've never heard it before, and I'm doubtful that it is a word with an established English usage – even as a scientist myself I'm also doubtful about what it means. Is it "big cats" generally or just "lions and tigers"? Couldn't we just use "larger big cats", "lions and tigers", or even the genus name Panthera? Richard New Forest (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It refers to the subfamily Pantherinae and is a standard variant of a subfamily name. I'd think it's an unnecessarily technical term for this article if something like "lions" or "big cats" will do. Ucucha 16:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Species vs. subspecies

When I do a Google Scholar search for "Panthera spelaea" (since 2013) I get 74 hits, while "Panthera leo spelaea" gives 54. (Searching since 2010 gives nearly equal results.) I'm going to add a note to the article to reflect this. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

How would you source it? FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Some papers in last years treat spelaea as species, see: SOTNIKOVA, M.; NIKOLSKIY, P.. (2006). Systematic position of the cave lion Panthera spelaea (Goldfuss) based on cranial and dental characters. Quaternary International 142–143: 218–228. DOI:10.1016/j.quaint.2005.03.019; Stuart & Lister, 2011, Marciszak et al., 2014. Burmeister (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I've noted the same in the latest papers, also this thesis King, Leigha M., "Phylogeny of Panthera, Including P. atrox, Based on Cranialmandibular Characters" (2012). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1444. and this paper Sotnikova, Marina M., and Irina V. Foronova. 2014. even use P. fossilis and P. spealea as separate species. I don't know if is still convenient have a separate article for every kind of "cave lion"... --Rextron (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Cave" lion is an unnatural grouping though, so I don't know it it would be helpful to merge them all there... FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I should say that by "cave lion" I was referring to P. spelaea and P. fossilis group (that could be the same species), not P. atrox.--Rextron (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Stuart & Lister (2011) argue for full species status. WolfmanSF (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any sort of consensus? FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Move to Panthera spelaea?

Seems to be the most common view now, also confirmed by this new DNA study: http://www.openquaternary.com/articles/10.5334/oq.24/ FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. On another hand, I hope that another research makes clear what to do with Panthera fossilis. --Rextron (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I sorta agree, but because "The identification of this split within the Early Pleistocene at 1.89 Ma, rather than the Middle Pleistocene, shows that the modern lion and cave lion lineages represent substantially distinct taxa. A caveat to this is that the estimates rely strongly on the fossil calibrations used. If reanalysis later shows that these fossils have been ascribed to the wrong lineages or are re-dated to different periods then their utility in the analysis will be compromised.", I'd suggest waiting until the Dina and Uya analysis is done. 2001:56A:F567:3700:9C8D:A804:4210:CC48 (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This analysis was based on mitochondrial genome sequences and it can be safe to assume that these are different taxa. The caveat relates to the dating of 1.89 Ma. for the split between their most recent common ancestor.

"Comparison with other recent pantherines (Figure 3) demonstrates that the degree of mitochondrial divergence is considerably greater than that found between well-defined subspecies in modern lion (P. leo) (Barnett et al., 2014), leopard (P. pardus) (Uphyrkina et al., 2001), or tiger (P. tigris) (Luo et al., 2004). The estimated divergence time between P. leo and P. spelaea is also greater than that between the two newly recognised species of clouded leopard, Neofelis nebulosa and N. diardi, which has been estimated at 1.41 Ma (Buckley-Beason et al., 2006). Mitochondrial data and the considerable morphological differences (Sotnikova and Nikolskiy, 2006) support the recognition of the cave lion as a full species: Panthera spelaea"

I note that the team has extracted mDNA from the cubs:http://www.earthtouchnews.com/discoveries/discoveries/siberias-frozen-cave-lion-cubs-dna-cause-of-death-other-secrets but nothing further has been revealed. I understand that so far, the DNA is degraded and all that can be confirmed is that these are cave lions. Why not move it to simply Cave lion that would not be impacted by the debate?Regards,  William Harris |talk  19:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Cave lion is now a disambiguation page, so not sure what would be the next best alternative... If this is the main topic of that name, the other page can maybe be moved to Cave lion (disambiguation). FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The disambig is incorrect - there is only one cave lion, named by Goldfuss as such in 1810 - Panthera leo spelaea, meaning cave. He also named its competitor Canis lupus spelaea - the cave wolf. Regards,  William Harris |talk  21:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, at least when it comes to the scientific name, but it appears the others have also been referred to as such in their common names... But in any case, this one seems to be the main subject. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the American lion used caves, apart from the rather hopeful "They probably used caves or fissures for shelter from the cold weather" that appeared once in that article. There is no citation supporting the two others by a common name of cave lion name - you have been a bit quick in creating the disimbag (above).

So where does this leave us now? MSW3 would normally be our guide in anything mammal but it does not cover ancient, extinct forms. Based on the most recent genetic evidence, Goldfuss was correct about the cave wolf being lupus but not about the cave lion. Therefore, I believe that this article should be moved to what is currently the Cave lion disimbag, all 3 ancient lions mentioned on this article (with links) as they are of a related interest, and someone sorting out the American lion article by toning down the "American cave lion" conjecture that has clearly led to the incorrect disimbag page. It now comes down to a majority agreement by editors.  William Harris |talk  21:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Where does that leave Panthera leo fossilis, tough? It has perhaps not actually been referred to as a cave lion? FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

And "Early Middle Pleistocene European cave lion" is kind of unbearably clunky.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in evidence-based decision-making. Show me the evidence that the American lion and fossilis have a common name that involves "cave" in any way; there is certainly none provided in either of those articles. Let me suggest that this is yet another case of Wikipedia misadvising readers. (Additionally, Leidy originally named the American lion as Felix atrox, so I am about to fire the first shot by citing that on the American lion article. It became known later as Panthera atrox. Where this article got hold of Panthera leo atrox remains a mystery, as it is not even a lion - http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2010/05/08/the_american_lion_is_not_a_lio/) The latest study tells us "Panthera fossilis....is considered an ancestral form of Panthera spelaea..." and "Our analyses of mitochondrial genome sequences reveal that the Middle Pleistocene Panthera fossilis is likely to represent a form already on the spelaea lineage. Its appearance in the fossil record demonstrates the initial spread of the ancestral cave lion form into Eurasia." This study has both Beth Shapiro and G.L. behind it; I have yet to see G.L. being cavalier in his analyses, or yet to getting it wrong. Regards,  William Harris |talk  03:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh, even the lion itself was originally called Felis leo by Linnaeus, and Smilodon fatalis was originally Felis fatalis too (though in its own subgenus); most felids described prior to the 20th century seem to have been placed in Felis at some point, so that doesn't really say much. But yeah, if these common names and even trinomials are somehow made up for Wikipedia, they need to be thrown to the pits of hell... But it should be fairly easy to check. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the taxonomy, I have found sources now cited on the American lion page: "The American lion was originally designated by Leidy as Felis atrox in 1853. The paleontologist Hemmer proposed Panthera leo atrox in 1974, which was later supported by Kurten in 1985." That does not mean that the name is now Panthera leo atrox and no doubt other paleontologists continue to disagree, but Kurten's support is persuasive so I am happy with it, and leave the experts to continue the debate.

To the best of my knowledge, there is a requirement for a WP:COMMONNAME but no requirement to include "also known as" names. Even if these "also known as" names were to be included, according to WP:BOLDTITLE "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence, so these other names should not appear in bold in accordance with MOS:BOLD. What we have here is decision-making about the common name of an article - Cave lion - being restricted by one "also known as" name used in the American lion article that is not recognized under MOS and without a persuasive citation. As for myself, I now return to my world of Late Pleistocene wolves and leave the cat-fanciers to sort it out. Regards,  William Harris |talk  21:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

2017 discovery: Cave lion or lynx?

Did anyone notice that another frozen specimen was discovered by the Tirekhtykh River in the Abyysky District of Yakutia? Leo1pard (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw a new article that suggested that the newly discovered 'cub' might have been a lynx kitten. Leo1pard (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Leo1pard (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Did cave lions have a different colour to the modern lion?

The modern lion is yellow-brown, or tawny. This article, which has photographs, says that cave lions might have been grey. Though I do see grey, especially in the first photograph, I can also see yellow or brown in later photographs. Leo1pard (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Cave Lion size

A size of 235 kilos would make this species about the size of a Bengal tiger. How can you claim that this species was bigger than a Siberian tiger which weighs about 300 kilos?

Good catch. It looks like 235kg was on the lower side of the animal's weight range: it could weigh up to 400kg [2]. I've changed the article to reflect this. bcasterline^talk 13:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the Liger entry, ligers can be over 1100 lbs, which would make them larger than the cave lion. Battlekow 23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The size stated is not accurate. Being 25% larger than a male lion would place this cat at range between 600 and 650 lb. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.161.203.18 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 26 July 2006.

The 25% is what's inaccurate. According to this source, they weighed between 250 to 400 kg. -- bcasterline • talk 15:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The article also said that the cave lion was the largest cat that existed, though both the Siberian tiger and liger are larger, both about 12 feet long and around 800-850 pounds, respectfully, while the cave lion is only 11.5 feet long and around 700 pounds. Though the cave lion was bigger than the modern African lion, it wasn't the largest cat. 19:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)64.107.164.130

It wasn't indeed the largest cat (Ligers are not true cat species or breeds, just hybrids). Howevers, they were the largest lions [3]. Changed this. Peter Maas 08:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

GOD! I'm tired of all the dumb tiger fanboys talking about the Siberian Tiger being 800 lb!!! The average for the cat is a little over 500 lb. The Cave Lion was the largest, natural cat of all time. It's that simple. Ligers are not natural.

I think here is some confusion about what is a cave lion. If Panthera leo fossilis is excluded, as we handle it in the article, the cave lion (P. l. spelea) is not the biggest lion subspecies. There are no good sources used in this article for cave lion size and often they dont distinguish exactly between fossilis and spelea. My sources are probably not the best too, but I think they are better, than those internet pages.

• W. v. Koenigswald: Lebendige Eiszeit. Theiss-Verlag, 2002. ISBN 3-8062-1734-3
• Ernst Probst: Deutschland in der Urzeit. Orbis Verlag, 1999. ISBN 3-572-01057-8

Both say that P. l. fossilis was (together with P. t. atrox) the biggest subspecies of lion.--Altaileopard 15:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, this is more or less what I think I know about the sizes:

• Lion - 550lb (250kg)
• Tiger - 660lb (300kg)
• Smilodon - 800lb (363kg)
• Cave lion - 990lb (450kg)

There you go, that makes more sense. --Bobbo Bear 20:15, 25 January 2007 (GMT)

Isn't it likely that "25% larger" means dimensions, therefore the Cave Lion is (approx) 1.25^3 (1.95) larger than the African Lion? Alan Turner, author of 'The Big Cats and Their Fossil Relatives' indicated 'about twice the size of modern lions' (meaning weight). He indicated an average weight of 170kg for the African Lion (which seems conservative), so a reasonable estimate would be 340kg for the Cave Lion. I'll see if I can find the actual page number. Apollyon911 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Apollyon911

The largest cat ever wasn't the Eurasian cave lion (this one) but the American cave lion, Panthera atrox. Bear in mind, most authors consider them subspecies within the lion species but there is controverted evidence that the American cave lion was actually a giant jaguar (or, more accurately, a third line of descent from the last jaguar-lion common ancestor that invaded America in the early to mid Pleistocene and gave raise to both jagaur and P. atrox).--Menah the Great (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Realism in article

I posted something similair to this in the Cave Bear article.

Fossils are preserved better in caves, so assuming that an animal whose fossils were found in a cave lived mostly in caves is inaccurate. Our fossils might be found only in caves in 10,000 years.

The Cave Lion probably mostly did not live in caves.

Don't you think that during glaciation eras individuals and species chosing the more stable enviroment of caves as a "nest" would be favoured by natural selection? I do think that bears' habits that are what is left of glaciation-era mega-predators pretty much reflect that.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

But there are no evidence of 'cave' lions 'nests' in caves anywhere, unlike scimitar cats, for example. 'Cave' lions found in caves were universally dragged there once dead by cave hyenas, died hunting cave bears or simply fell down a crevasse and starved to death while looking for a way out.--Menah the Great (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

sources needed

The article needs sources to support some of its claims, such as this one: "there are some indications it may have existed as recently as 2,000 years ago, in the Balkans." Edrigu 20:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

speciments????

Indeed specimens. Any scientific or other source that mentiones this date and how they came up with it.Peter Maas 15:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Cave Lion → Panthera leo spelaea

• See discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• When, exactly, did lion become a proper noun? I suggest a move to Cave lion (which is now one of the stupidest & most needless redirects I've seen). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 10:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• That is quite a complex issue. Look at WT:MAMMAL. —innotata 00:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Shouldn't "Cave Lion" be a disambiguation page? Many other species are known by that name. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Agreed, this page should be at Panthera leo spelaea or Panthera spelaea and the term cave lion should be a disambig. page or general reference page for all Plio-Pleistocene Pantherinae species and subspecies both North American and European.--Kevmin (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support current scientific name, the vernacular name is not so common. —innotata 00:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• I just made this disambig page, which shows how much the term needs to be one: Cave lion FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, and let Cave Lion redirect to Cave lion, which currently is a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

About the specimen of Siegsdorf, Germany:

This is the original quote; at it don’t change since 2007:

Dec 21, 2009: This subspecies was one of the largest lions. An adult male, which was found in 1985 near Siegsdorf (Germany), had a shoulder height of around 1.2 m (4 ft) and a body length of 2.1 m (7 ft) without tail. This is similar to the size of a very large modern lion. The size of this male has been exceeded by other specimens of this subspecies. Therefore this cat may have been around 5-10% bigger than modern lions, but it didn't reach the measures of the earlier cave lion subspecies Panthera leo fossilis or those of the huge American lion (Panthera leo atrox).

June 28, 2009: This subspecies was one of the largest lions. An adult male, which was found in 1985 near Siegsdorf (Germany), had a shoulder height of around 1.2 m (4 ft) and a body length of 2.1 m (7 ft) without tail. This is similar to the size of a very large modern lion. The size of this male has been exceeded by other specimens of this subspecies. Therefore this cat may have been around 5-10 % bigger than modern lions, but it didn´t reach the measures of the earlier cave lion subspecies Panthera leo fossilis or those of the huge American lion (Panthera leo atrox).

Jun 30, 2007: One adult male, found in 1985 near Siegsdorf (Germany), had a shoulder height of around 1.2 m and a body length of 2.1 m, about the same size as a large lion, although some were 5-10 % bigger than modern lions.

Finally, Dr Bruce Patterson, in his book “The lions of Tsavo: exploring the legacy of Africa’s notorious man-eaters” stated that “P. leo spelaea, it was only 8-10 percent larger than that of modern lions” (See Page 105).

So, where it came this figure of 2.8 m. for this particular specimen? Schultz & Lein (1974) estimated a head-body length of 1.4-2.7 m, probably over the curves. However, more accurate comparisons, like that of Dr Patterson, show that these estimations were exaggerated. --AmbaDarla (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Lions, Chauvet cave.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lions, Chauvet cave.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lions, Chauvet cave.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Range not habitat

The following discusses range, not the habitat, which are different things.

Cave lions were widespread in parts of Europe, Asia and northwestern North America, from Great Britain, Germany and Spain [13] all the way across the Bering Strait to the Yukon Territory, and from Siberia to Turkistan.

- Kortoso (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Broke the text into two sections. Kortoso (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Löwenmensch

Err, "Löwenmensch" just means "lion man" in German. It's not a place name or anything like that. Kortoso (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Panthera leo spelaea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331031106/http://www.fns.uniba.sk/fileadmin/kalendar/2009/symposium/Abstract_book.pdf to http://www.fns.uniba.sk/fileadmin/kalendar/2009/symposium/Abstract_book.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirect Panthera leo spelaea to Eurasian cave lion?

See this for more details. Leo1pard (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue you bring up there (whether fossilis is valid or not) has to do with moving this article to a common name? FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Kindly come here for the conversation on that. Leo1pard (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No, what directly concerns this article should be discussed here, so it is immediately visible for future editors. I see no compelling reason to move this article to a common name, and none have been explained on that other page either. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

But then, what about the fact that the article Panthera leo fossilis is not so good? It lacks inline citations throughout much of its text:

"The Early Middle Pleistocene European cave lion is an extinct feline of the Pleistocene epoch. It was generally considered to be an early subspecies of the lion (Panthera leo), and thus called "Panthera leo fossilis," but a recent test suggests that cave lions may not have been subspecies of Panthera leo, but closely related to it. In that case, this felid would be called "Panthera fossilis." Some have placed it within the same species as the later cave lion, under the name "Panthera spelaea fossilis."

With a maximum head and body length of 2.4 metres (7.9 feet), which is about 0.5 metres (1.6 feet) longer than today's African lions, Panthera leo fossilis was almost as big as the American cave lion from the Upper Pleistocene.

Many bone-fragments of this cat are known from Mosbach in Germany, a small village, which is now included in the town of Wiesbaden. A nearly complete skull was found at Mauer, near Heidelberg (Germany). In the same sediment as the lion-skull was a 550,000-year-old lower jaw from the early hominid Homo heidelbergensis. The oldest records of Panthera leo fossilis in Europe are from Isernia at Italy and are about 700,000 years old. A 1.75-million-year-old jaw of a lion or felid, from Olduvai in Kenya, shows a striking similarity to those of Europe.

From Panthera leo fossilis derived the Upper Pleistocene European cave lion (Panthera leo spelaea), which is recorded for the first time about 300,000 years ago."

I repeat, what does that have to do with whether Panthera leo spelaea should be moved to a common name or not? FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Basically, if the unreferenced parts of Panthera leo fossilis were to be removed, then you would be left with the introduction, which says that the Early Middle Pleistocene European cave lion (fossilis) might actually be the same species as the Upper Pleistocene European cave lion (spelaea), in which case, the article Panthera leo fossilis could be merged into Panthera leo spelaea, but there is something controversial about the trinomina P. l. fossilis and P. l. spelaea. Especially as we now have soft tissues relating to spelaea, such as the skins of frozen zoological specimens, genetics suggest that the cave lion is not necessarily a subspecies of Panthera leo, but a sister lineage to it, similar to the relationship between the anatomically modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens) and Neanderthal (H. s. neanderthalensis or H. neanderthalensis), in which case, Panthera spelaea might be the more appropriate taxonomic name. Leo1pard (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a move to Panthera spelaea was already proposed here[4], but I have still no idea how the common name enters the picture. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

For the same reason that the articles on the Katanga lion (Panthera leo bleyenberghi, also called the "Southwest African lion") and Transvaal lion (Panthera leo krugeri, also called the "Southeast African lion") were redirected to a new article, that is Southern African lion. In addition, the name "European cave lion" appears here, but as we know, spelaea did not just inhabit Europe, but also Asia, and the name "Eurasian cave lion" appears in this reference, which talks about fossilis being in Asia also. Leo1pard (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Those are modern animals, prehistoric animals are usually kept at their scientific names. So you would have to demonstrate that this animal is more often referred to as "Eurasian cave lion" than Panthera spelaea. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a trouble is that we the editors at Wikipedia should not decide if Panthera spelaea is more appropriate as the name of an article than Panthera leo spelaea, or vice-versa, and the name Eurasian cave lion allows us to be WP:neutral in this, besides the issue of whether or not the Early Middle Pleistocene European cave lion should be called Panthera leo fossilis, Panthera fossilis or Panthera spelaea fossilis. Leo1pard (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Luckily, we have geneticists to decide for us, so it's just a matter of waiting until they show results. As for fossilis, we can't do anything before a scientific consensus emerges, and we should let it be until then. But if it happens, we should simply merge that article into this one. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose It has long been policy that fossil species/subspecies/genera should be placed at the Scientific name, as that is INEVITABLY the most commonly used name in the liturature. Eurasian cave lion is VERY much not the most commonly used name, and is most likely original research something that is not allowed at all on wiki. As funkmonk points out the P. (L.) fossilis article is at not relevant to this discussion --Kevmin § 03:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I would not say that it is WP:original research, as the name "Eurasian cave lion" is here, but basically, you are saying that we should wait till geneticists or taxonomists decide if the Upper Pleistocene European cave lion is actually subspecies of Panthera leo, in which case the trinomen Panthera leo spelaea would be valid, or of a separate lineage to Panthera leo, in which case this trinomen would be invalid, and the binomen Panthera spelaea would be valid, and possibly Panthera spelaea fossilis for the Early Middle Pleistocene form? But how long could that take, considering that whether the Neanderthal should be called Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, similar to the issue of whether spelaea is either a subspecies of Panthera leo or a sister species (Panthera spelaea) to Panthera leo, is still a matter of WP:dispute amongst scientists? Leo1pard (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that there is no definitive answer. The species or subspecies status of the cave lion is still debated, while the Eurasian cave lion doesn't cover its full range which includes North America.

I did some google searches on different names. "Cave lion" got 306k results, "European cave lion" 31.2k, and "Eurasian cave lion" 59.2k, "American cave lion" 10.7k, and "Beringian cave lion" 887 results. This supports the use of "Eurasian cave lion" as the most used common name.

The scientific names were splits with 61.7k results for "Panthera leo spelaea" and 49.8k for "Panthera spelaea", which again confirms our conclusions on the uncertainty. The results for fossilis strongly support it being a subspecies of Panthera leo ("Panthera leo fossilis" 50.7k, "Panthera spelaea fossilis" 550, and "Panthera fossilis" 1080). This supports Panthera leo fossilis for the article title, in which case Panthera leo spelaea would be the more consistent choice over Panthera spelaea.

Which comes back to the choice of scientific or common name. The scientific name may be most often used for extinct animal articles on Wikipedia, but that is probably because they don't have widely used common names. Cave bear, Woolly mammoth and Beringian wolf are article titles. The Eurasian cave lion doesn't cover the full range and cave lion (the most appropriate name) is undermined by the frequent use of American cave lion. The case for the name change is not particularly strong.

So I oppose the name change for now. We can revisit this when the cave lion gets species status, which if recent changes on extant cats are considered it should.   Jts1882 | talk  08:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that doing a Google Scholar search for the two scientific names and counting results may not reflect current thinking, unless you restrict it to the last few years. FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

But in that case, something will have to be done for European cave lion and Eurasian cave lion. Spelaea is a European or Eurasian cave lion, but then, so is Fossilis, so it would perhaps be appropriate to turn European cave lion and Eurasian cave lion into disambiguations for both Fossilis and Spelaea, similar to Cave lion being one for these two and American lion, or redirect them here, since this section talks about both Pleistocene forms. Leo1pard (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think most people searching for European or Eurasian cave lion would be looking for spelaea. Do we even know if fossilis was an actual cave lion or did this just get assumed the way it was for the North American "cave lion"? Perhaps the lede of spelaea needs expanding to include its distribution and evolution from fossilis. Then people find what they expect for cave lion and there is a clear link to the ancestral form.   Jts1882 | talk  11:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Or should Panthera leo fossilis be provisionally merged into Panthera leo spelaea, especially considering that the only parts of that article that have inline citations are the infobox and introduction, which says that it could be considered as being the same species as spelaea, in which case its trinomen would be Panthera spelaea fossilis? As we know, unreferenced sections can be removed, so that article is legally under threat of having only the introduction as its main text. Leo1pard (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Which scientific papers state fossilis is a synonym? We can't just do whatever we personally think makes sense. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily a synonym, but possibly a subspecies of spelaea. Leo1pard (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

But again, who says this? We cant just make stuff up. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

These guys. Leo1pard (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If that becomes the consensus, I would agree a merge to this article would be in order. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Or for now, let European cave lion, Eurasian cave lion and Siberian cave lion be redirected to this section, in the same way that I redirected Nubian lion to this section, because just as the Nubian lion of Northeast Africa is not the Barbary lion of North Africa, sensu stricto, the first three names should not be exclusively meant for the Upper Pleistocene form (Spelaea). Leo1pard (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

References

No, we don't need you to make the lion articles more of a mess than you already have. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Panthera leo spelaea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126142729/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/11/dissecting-the-cave-lion-diet.html?ref=hp to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/11/dissecting-the-cave-lion-diet.html?ref=hp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927215804/http://www.beringia.com/02/02maina5.html to http://www.beringia.com/02/02maina5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Why I kept the cave art on top of the skeleton's diagram

Though it is common to use images of skeletons, prehistoric people did us a favor by depicting these animals in their caves, so it would be as close as we could get to having a photograph of a cave lion, unless someone uploads at least one image of the Siberian cubs Uyan and Dina, so I did this, like I would for articles on modern animals. Leo1pard (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why we needed two pictures in the taxobox, though. And the "restructuring" of the article layout was a complete mess. FunkMonk (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

How was it a mess? Leo1pard (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a well-defined layout precedence in featured articles about mammals (extinct as well as extant) that should be followed, both when it comes to the order and naming of sections. It should not be ignored for no good reason. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

And what has that got to do with shifting the cave image back from the taxobox, may I ask? Even other taxoboxes can be fairly detailed. Leo1pard (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It has to do with your question of why I say restructuring the article's layout was a mess. As for the image, it only clutters the taxobox. Double taxobox images can be ok to show sexual dimorphism, but not really much else. FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Or even if there are 2 species in a genus, or 2 genera in a subfamily, or something like that, which is not the case with this page. Leo1pard (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See evidence that most of the more recent reliable sources treat "spelaea" as a species name rather than a subspecies one, so this request is granted. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  22:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Panthera leo spelaea → Panthera spelaea – If most evidence cited in the article points to distinct species status, why should the article still be titled Panthera leo spelaea? The introduction and taxonomy section both point out the extensive morphological, mitochondrial, and phylogenetic support behind P. spelaea, yet the old title still persists. Luke Beall (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 03:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, on the other hand, the taxonomy section does also say several authors regard it as a subspecies... but three of the four references are 20th century, one from the sixties... Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 05:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Having compiled the info in the Taxonomy and partly Evolution sections, I strongly agree to moving the article to Panthera spelaea. Several later, i.e. 21st century, authors also refer to Panthera spelaea -- see the list of references. This list is not complete: yet unref'ed excavations of cave lion bones described in recent years are also referred to as Panthera spelaea. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure not Eurasian cave lion, considering what was mentioned above? Leo1pard (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I'd forgotten about the previous discussion but using Eurasian cave lion would make the species/subspecies debate moot. A number of other extinct pantherines have articles under the common name: American lion, European ice age leopard, European jaguar, Tuscany lion, Wanhsien tiger, Trinil tiger, Ngandong tiger, and probably others.   Jts1882 | talk  08:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that mooting the debate is not a solution. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Moot with respect to the article title. Then the debate can be handled in the article and the article title is stable whatever the outcome.   Jts1882 | talk  10:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

See Cave lion. Panthera leo fossilis is also a Eurasian cave lion. Using a vernacular name isn't going to be helpful here. Plantdrew (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Most modern papers seem to refer to P. spelaea as a species, although not all. Of the four listed as references for subspecies, two are 45-50 years old and Alan Turner, who used subspecies in 1984, later used P. spelaea in his book, Big cats and their fossil relatives, which is a good secondary reference but not very recent. Looking through the article reference list, there are a few other references using subspecies (e.g. Diedrich 2011a, 2011b, 2011c), but more using species. Christiansen (2008) finds the modern lion more closely related to the leopard than the cave lion.

But what if we merge Panthera leo fossilis with this page under Eurasian cave lion, partly considering that the fossilis lion was consiered as a subspecies of Panthera spelaea, in which case, its trinomen would be Panthera spelaea fossilis, and that it is at least an older form of the spelaea lion? Leo1pard (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

This proposal is NEITHER an answer to the initial question: rename and move?, NOR does using a vernacular name as title solve taxonomic status, as Plantdrew already pointed out. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Before I brought up the issue of merging that page with this one, what Plantdrew meant was that P. l. fossilis (which has a separate article to this) is also a Eurasian cave lion, which means that it would not make sense to have this article renamed Eurasian cave lion, without redirecting that page to ECL also. Anyways, let me ask Plantdrew on this newer proposal. Leo1pard (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

While I think the species status is probably warranted, a name change requires firm evidence. A good recent secondary reference would be useful. The Werdelin et al (2010) review of cat phylogeny and evolution (in the MacDonald book) concluded that the issue must remain open until more fossil evidence is available.   Jts1882 | talk  08:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Good that you brought up by Diedrich's publications. Did he ever discuss systematic status? What I read of him, refers to excavations and detailed descriptions in mostly Central Europe, but without discussing specific or subspecific status. Did I miss any of his arguments for using the subspecific name? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I had a brief scan of the three 2011 papers earlier this morning. I didn't see anything on the systematics, although I didn't read them thoroughly. He seems more interested in the behavior (e.g. predation, competion with other species) so I think his use of subspecies was just convention.   Jts1882 | talk  10:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The following post-2010 publications have not yet been referenced; their authors refer to Panthera spelaea, though admittedly without discussing systematics:

• Cueto, M., Camarós, E., Castaños, P., Ontañón, R. and Arias, P., 2016. Under the Skin of a Lion: Unique Evidence of Upper Paleolithic Exploitation and Use of Cave Lion (Panthera spelaea) from the Lower Gallery of La Garma (Spain). PloS one, 11(10): e0163591.
• Chernova, O.F., Kirillova, I.V., Shapiro, B., Shidlovskiy, F.K., Soares, A.E.R., Levchenko, V.A. and Bertuch, F., 2016. Morphological and genetic identification and isotopic study of the hair of a cave lion (Panthera spelaea Goldfuss, 1810) from the Malyi Anyui River (Chukotka, Russia). Quaternary Science Reviews, 142:61-73.
• Kirillova, I.V., Chernova, O.F., Krylovich, O.V., Tiunov, A.V. and Shidlovskiy, F.K., 2014. A Discovery of a cave lion (Panthera spelaea Goldfuss, 1810) skeleton in Russia. In Doklady Biological Sciences (Vol. 455, No. 1: 102-105.
• Bocherens, H., Baryshnikov, G. and Van Neer, W., 2014. Were bears or lions involved in salmon accumulation in the Middle Palaeolithic of the Caucasus? An isotopic investigation in Kudaro 3 cave. Quaternary International, 339: 112-118.
• Kuzmin, Y.V., Kosintsev, P.A., Stepanov, A.D., Boeskorov, G.G. and Cruz, R.J., 2017. Chronology and faunal remains of the Khayrgas Cave (Eastern Siberia, Russia). Radiocarbon, 59(2): 575-582.
• Sabol, M., 2011. A record of Pleistocene lion-like felids in the territory of Slovakia. Quaternaire, (4): 215-228.

At present, Diedrich seems to be the only one who keeps using the subspecific name. Hope this helps to make up your minds. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

A change from P. l. spelaea to P. spelaea must be accompanied by a change from Panthera leo fossilis to either P. fossilis or P. spelaea fossilis, so do we agree to at least change that article, aside from the issue of merging it with this page? Leo1pard (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we relist again and create a Survey section above the current discussion (which we'd presumably then label Discussion)?

The target Panthera spelaea has an interesting page history:

16:07, 12 May 2011‎ FunkMonk (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (34 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (←Redirected page to Panthera leo spelaea)
09:06, 27 April 2010‎ Xqbot (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (23 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Robot: Fixing double redirect to Cave lion)
04:28, 6 December 2006‎ Huanghe63 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (23 bytes) (0)‎ . . (double redir)
18:52, 5 December 2006‎ Nuggetboy (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (23 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Rmv 2R)
01:43, 3 December 2006‎ RebelRobot (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (23 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Robot: Fixing double redirect)
21:02, 28 November 2004‎ 68.81.231.127 (talk | block)‎ . . (23 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (redirect)

which indicates several page moves already. Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. "Panthera spelaea" is somewhat more common in Google Books than "Panthera leo spelaea" and seems to be more common in recent books; as pointed out, it also appears to reflect the majority opinion of scholars.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Scientific names

Please see this. Leo1pard (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

New paper

Early Pleistocene origin and extensive intra-species diversity of the extinct cave lion Scientific Reports Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Holocene Noting

The Holocene epoch starts at about 11,650 years from the present, so I'm not sure that the cave/steppe lion should say that they died in the Holocene. Their extinction was a about a millenium away but still not in the Holocene.--Mjmannella (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)