Talk:American lion

message: The molecular phylogeny reference is to the european cave lion, not the american, so its relevance is open to question, unless there is other literature which argues strongly that they are the same species.--68.35.8.201 06:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how relevant is the molecular phylogeny cite? 

message: What's the posited cause of the extinction?  Did the Indians kill it?TCO 03:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely, like the Australian megafauna extinction the cause would not be one thing, it could be a combination of hunting, habitat changes, the extinction of other large species used for food etc. The fact is we proberly will never know, as evidence for ancient extinction is rarer that the fossils. Enlil Ninlil 04:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of the extinction 

message: Why is the cave lion present in the classification chapter ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.156.52.117 (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cave Lion 

message: :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: no consensus.  This conversation has gone stale and there doesn't seem to be consensus for a move.  The fact that the request was changed halfway through means that this probably hasn't been a completely valid discussion (especially as the requested move page will be listing a different request to here) so I think a speedy renomination is sensible should anyone wish to make one. Dpmuk (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When, exactly, did lion become a proper noun? I suggest a move to American lion (which is now one of the stupidest & most needless redirects I've seen).  TREKphiler hit me ♠  09:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about moving to Panthera leo atrox? Then we'll prevent confusion with the puma, which is called the same. FunkMonk (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Panthera atrox may be more appropriate since the some workers contend that it was not a lion.  Cephal-odd (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, I agree. Some info: Should this be made into a formal move request? FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That blog post conveniently ignored all the ancient DNA evidence that shows that atrox is closely related to the modern lion, see here. Panthera atrox is absolute unacceptable based on the same evidence. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert but the PDF you linked says, among other things: "However, the status of these groups as species or subspecies, and their relationships to each other and to extant Panthera remains unclear..."  I don't see how you can say that calling atrox a species and not a subspecies is unacceptable based on that.  Powers T 01:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Until now, it has been seen as a subspecies, and yes, there are some indications that maybe it is warranted to make them species, but the evidence is incomplete, so the default, subspecies, should remain. If we as wikipedia are upgrading it to species while the major articles treat them as subspecies, we are doing original research.  -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Except when it was first identified, it was as a separate species, and it only later was classified as a subspecies.  I'd need to see more evidence that the subspecies classification is the current scientific consensus before agreeing to a move.  Powers T 13:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree. FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no controversy, the article simply contains outdated information. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, regardless, the common name is better than the scientific one.  Powers T 16:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No the common name is worse, for as is noted, P. atrox was much closer to a jaguar then a lion, as such "American lion" is inaccurate misleading at best and should be avoided per naming conventions.--Kevmin § 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It ain't closer to the Jaguar, That is outdated data. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See what I mean about controversy over the taxonomy?  American Lion or American lion is just fine.  I've never heard the Puma called that, so I doubt there's any significant ambiguity that can't be resolved with a hatnote.  Powers T 13:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Ah, too bad, I don't follow mammal paleontology closely, so seems like there indeed is controversy. FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fun is that the cladistic studies are inconsistent with each other, and many traits used for the analysis are subject to convergent evolution because of prey type for example. So, skull studies using either specific traits or geomoprphometric data are notoriously difficult. Which is why we get these opposite results by the same researcher. In such a case, it is better to reply on the molecular data, which is less prone to convergence.  -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've changed it to P. leo atrox then, my initial reason for moving was that American Lion was ambiguous anyway, not that it was not a lion. FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't change the proposal in the middle of the discussion!  You've now potentially invalidated any !votes that came prior to your change!  Powers T 01:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That would depend on the specific case. Here, from what I can see, all it changes is that KimvdLinde might support. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I scratched off my support to the subspecies name until it has been established the common name is an issue. Currently, I am not convinced. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Are we really sure that "American Lion" is used more often for this species than Panthera leo atrox? That's what the policy is about, not that we use any common name available. A Google search wouldn't help, since American lion is used about other species as well. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The only uses of "American Lion" to refer to the cougar appear to be primarily rhetorical or metaphorical, not literal.  I think we're safe with a hatnote.  Powers T 13:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

text: 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.
Since the cave lion page has been renamed as Panthera Spelaea, shouldn't this page be also retitled as Panthera atrox? It'd end a lot of conflicts and edit wars, and also be more accurate scientifically. Please consider my suggestion. Ishan87 (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Is the American lion more often considered a species or a subspecies? The article takes both positions at different points with little discussion. The intro assumes subspecies status with no mention of alternatives, while the classification section presents species status as the majority view and mentions that some consider it only a subspecies. This should be harmonized so that the dominant view is presented first in both locations, but I'm not sure which one is more accepted. --Khajidha (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, someone put the alternative name in the lead but the problem still remains. The lead and the taxobox treat the subspecies form as the usual one and the species interpretation as the minority view while the classification section takes the opposite position. This difference is jarring and confusing. --Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it is confusing and inconsistent.  I think I've improved things a little by adding the species version to the lead para, and I've put a citation-needed on the mention of P atrox in the body of the article.  Is there an accepted WP source for extinct mammals?  If so we should go with that, but if not, then we ought to have both versions, each with refs.  Richard New Forest (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that both are there, but with little explanation or consistency. The taxobox gives the name as Panthera leo atrox, meaning that it is considered a subspecies. Meanwhile, the classification states that it "is considered a distinct species ... Panthera atrox." This needs to be harmonized. BOTH should be mentioned, but preference should be given to the majority view (whatever that is) with the other listed as a dissenting opinion. The phrasing in the classification paragraph makes me think that the full species view is the standard and the article should be changed to reflect that. --Khajidha (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now considered a kind of jaguar, so the current taxobox is incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can make the changes that the article needs. If all of you are agree, I will do it in a maximum of three days, to allow more comments and suggestions. As matter of fact, I propose other names for the article, like “Panthera atrox”, “American giant panther” or even “Giant jaguar”. Personally, I will like the first one, and been an extinct animal, we should use its scientific name. AmbaDarla (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rephrased the classification section to harmonize it with the intro. I don't think I messed up any refs, but would welcome another opinion as to whether new citations are needed. --Khajidha (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification confusion 

message: There have been fact tags on this article for 3 years...  really?  How about not editing or making additions without an attached citation ok?Tirronan (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions without citation 

message: I would like to present my understanding of current scientific data and estimates on the subject and appreciate everyone's feedback. Ofcourse since this involves a bit of guesswork and original research, I don't expect it to make it to the main article.
Study by Sunquists http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/255137_160089730725244_100001726556474_400274_8052023_n.jpg
Study by Sorkin http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/252867_160089800725237_100001726556474_400277_262299_n.jpg
I am using these studies as the base of my assumptions. (This is as I posted on an other forum).
There seems to be a lots of debate on the weights of Smilodon populator, American lion and other extinct felines. Misconceptions include average weights of 500 or 550 kg for both. I have compared the sizes of the two Smilodons, American Lion and extant felids. I had to do some guesswork to connect the missing links. The weights of the Siberian Tiger seem to be older ones. I am also presuming that if the Tiger can reach 380 kg in world record specimens, the African Lion too can touch 350 kg although the current world record is 313 kg. I am rather weak when it comes to formatting so I am using this rudimentry format.
Smilodon populator / American Lion / Smilodon fatalis / Siberian Tiger / Bengal Tiger / African Lion (Weight in kg)
Lower average - 220 / 180 / 160 / 160 / 150 / 140
Upper average - 360 / 320 / 280 / 250 / 230 / 210
Exceptional (1) - 400+ / 350+ / 300+ / 270 / 250 / 230
Exceptional (2) - 455 / 400 / 320 / ~300 / 270 / 250
Exceptional (3) - 470 / 420 / 350 / 320 / ~300 / ~280
World record - 500+ / 450+ / 360+ / 384 / 389 / 313 (~350)
I am increasing the Bengal tiger and African lion's (lower) weights and downgrading the Siberians as the modern trend (compared to Sunquist's study).
(From the main articles) The average height at shoulder for Smilodon populator and American Lion is 1.22m and 1.2m while length excluding the tail is 2.6m and 2.5m respectively. American Lion is most certainly lot less muscular than S. populator. Shoulder height for S. fatalis is 0.91-0.99m (Same as a Bengal tiger). While modern lions can reach heights of 1.2m, that would be an exceptionally big lion. I am using figures from memory which put the extant lion's average height at 1.01m-1.10m and 0.91m-0.99m for the tiger. There are reports of large(st?) Smilodons reaching 1.6m height or 3.5m long American Lions but these would be the world record specimens.
Sorkin's study says maximal(is that a word?) for Smilodon populator, American Lion and Siberian Tiger is 470, 420 and 320 kg. Now 320 certainly isn't the absolute maximum for the Siberian, although the 384 figure is not scientifically confirmed, the Guiness records accepts 389 kg for the Bengal Tiger. The 1.6m height keeps poping up on the internet time-to-time under the name Smilodon nectator or necator (or Smilodon populator nectator?).
The average weights for the Bengal tiger and African lion are 210-220 kg and 185-200 kg. Now if I take the arithmatic mean of the lower and upper average weights of the American lion, I get 250 kg (180+320=500, 500/2=250). But more individuals will be leaning toward the lower limit than the upper limit. So the recent estimate of the American lion's average weight being 235-240 kg is correct. Likewise the mean for the S. populator is 290 kg, downgrading this accordingly gives an average weight of 260-270 kg.
The Cave lion would be somewhat heavier than the Siberian tiger and very slightly heavier or equal to S. fatalis. While the European homotherium (latidens) will be a bit lighter or equal in weight to the Siberian tiger. Machairodus kabir would be around 350 kg and the Giant European homotherium (crenatidens), 400 kg at the level where the American lion is 420 kg and Smilodon populator 470 kg (Upper exceptional, approaching world record).
P.s The main article is in shambles, this doesn't sound very encyclopediac The American Lion is thought to be the largest cat that ever lived! It stood taller than the African Lion at 5 foot (1.7M) and 11.5 foot (3.5M) in length from nose to tail and weighing about 700-800 lbs on average, with great examples over 1000 lbs well over the Euro-cave lion weight of 400 kg. This Prehistoric Cat had a very muscular body with longer legs taller than an African Lion, it stood 5 feet and was faster, with 4 inch plus canine's. This Top Ice Age Predator had an estimated bite force of 1800 lbs. per square inch. That is twice the bite force of today's modern lion. Ranged from Alaska to the middle of South America. It, also, had the largest brain to body size of any lions ,(or of any cats, either, living, or extinct, for that matter), suggesting it was social and highly intelligent. Devang.dn (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to edit, just cite what you add.Tirronan (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estimating P. atrox's weight 

message: Hello! I just wanted to clear up a little about the American Lion's classification, just a little bit. This article says that it is its own separate species, more closely related to the Jaguar, than to the modern Lion. However, I have just read about a recent genetic study claiming that its DNA is much more similar to that of a Lion, thus making its official binomial scientific name, Panthera leo atrox. Is this true, or is it false? Because it is in a peer-reviewed journal, then, I think that means that I can add it to this article, but in an NPOV way. However, before I do that, I just want to check on the three most major theories, about its classification, here: 1. It is a subspecies of the Lion, Panthera leo. 2. It is in its own separate species, Panthera atrox, due to it being much more closely related to the modern Jaguar, Panthera onca. 3. It is in its own separate species, Panthera atrox, due to its being much more closely-related to the modern Tiger, Panthera tigris. So, my bottom line here, is, Do any of you known exactly which big cat - The Lion, The Jaguar, or The Tiger - it was the most closely-related to? Thanks! :) ! Fast Biter (Talk). 17:21, 22 June, 2011. (UTC).
:It's possible both studies are correct. It could have DNA more similar to a lion but still be phlyogenetically closer to a jaguar. Think of a gibbon: we know that it closer to humans than to monkeys, because it is on the ape branch of the primate family tree. But it's much closer to the common ancestor of monkeys and apes, so its DNA is probably closer to that of monkeys than to humans. But still, gibbons are recognized as apes, not monkeys, despite their ancestral DNA info, because it better reflects the real relationships. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: You see, I have 2 new links to share with you: The first is a 2003 study by Burger et. al.. It proves that atrox is the sister taxon to spelaea. And isn't spelaea considered a subspecies of the lion? I mean, come on, after all, EVEN THIS ARTICLE states that spelaea is the sister taxon, of atrox, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! I mean, just plain, good, old, common sense, would obviously have it that, since spelaea is considered to be a lion subspecies, then, the same would be the case, for atrox, right? It also confirmed, again, through analysis of well-preserved DNA, that there were two main clades, of "Cave" Lions: The spelaea group, and the atrox group. The spelaea group consists of spelaea, itself, as well as fossilis and vereschagini. The atrox group consisted of just plain, well, atrox, itself. The "Cave" Lion clade was the sister clade of the "Modern" Lion clade, which consists of the African, the Barbary, and the Asiatic lions.
Now, the second study was conducted by Ross Barnett et. al.. It finds empirical support for three distinct clades, among the species of Panthera leo. The first consists of the modern-day lions, of Africa and Southern Asia. The second consists mainly of the Eurasian and Beringian cave lions, which, as stated above, includes the spelaea, fossilis, and vereschagini (sub)species. And, finally, the third clade consists of the American Cave Lion, the atrox. 
I'm afraid that I currently cannot provide links, to these sources, at the moment, because it is now 12:41, A.M., where I live, (which is in Omaha, Nebraska, by the way), and I am very tired, and I am right about to go to bed, right now. However, tomorrow, I WILL provide links to those two sources! Cheers! :D!
.P.S.: Oh, and, by the way, you might have noticed that I often say, "just plain", a lot. Yeah, I know, I say it, all the time. Everyone always says that, about me. XD! Mozzyepic24 (Talk) 24:43, 17 July, 2011. (UTC).
::Here is my position in this theme, in base of the new evidence and the complete studies presented.
First: Panthera atrox is NOT a pure lion, period. This sick thing of putting names of present animals to the prehistoric ones is the real problem. Panthera atrox was a unique species that is related with jaguar closer than lions. But it is not a lion or a jaguar either. Genetics says it is related with Panthera (leo) spelaea, but fossils says that is related with jaguars, so obvious conclusion, this is a unique cat related with other ones, but it is not them.
 
Second: The document of Barnet et al. (2009) don’t debunk any other paper, as matter of fact, his document is from January of 2009, while the document of Christiansen is of September of 2009, and also was accepted rater fast. Also, Christiansen concluded: “The great North American Pleistocene pantherine felid Panthera atrox has had a turbulent phylogenetic history, and has been claimed to show affinities to both the jaguar and the tiger; currently, it is most often regarded as a subspecies of the extant lion. The cranial, mandibular, and dental morphology of Panthera atrox was compared with those of extant lions, jaguars, and tigers using bivariate, multivariate, and shape analyses. Results indicate that the skull of Panthera atrox shows lion affinities, but also deviates from lions in numerous aspects. Mandibular morphology is more similar to jaguars and tigers and, as with cranial morphology, the mandible shows a number of traits not present among extant pantherines. Multivariate analyses grouped Panthera atrox separately from other pantherines. Panthera atrox was no lion, and cannot be assigned to any of the extant pantherines; it constituted a separate species. A possible scenario for evolution of P. atrox is that it formed part of a pantherine lineage that entered the Americas in the mid-Pleistocene and gave rise to the extant jaguar and Panthera atrox in the late Pleistocene of North America. These studies suggest that previous models of lion biogeography are incorrect, and although lions may have been present in Beringia, they did not penetrate into the American mainland.” So, is the contrary, Christiansen paper invalidate the study of Barnett, in the specific case of Panthera atrox, let's see why.
 
If you see the sample from Barnet et al. (2009), there is only four specimens of Panthera atrox there, while all the other specimens are of Panthera leo vereshchagini from Alaska and Canada, over the ice plaque in Beringia, remember that “although lions may have been present in Beringia, they did not penetrate into the American mainland” (Christiansen & Harris, 2009). Also, the sample size is not as large as some lion fans clamed, using only 20 specimens from America (just four are Panthera atrox), and 21 from Europe and Russia. Christiansen & Harris (2009) used 23 specimens from collections “at the George C. Page Museum (LACMHC) and thus all from the latest Pleistocene locality of Rancho La Brea (11,000-40,000 years BP). Only well-preserved and largely complete specimens were chosen for study. These were reviewed in light of a comparative database of consisting of 78 tigers (44 <;32 ,), 106 lions (63 <; 43 ,), and 57 jaguars (35 <; 22 ,)”. So, Barnett makes the mistake of including all the specimens of Panthera leo vereshchagini like if they were Panthera atrox.
Here is the document of Christiansen & Harris (2009):
http://www.mesozoico.com.ar/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=1706
You most login first.
Until ancient-DNA and nuclear-DNA test clarified the issue, the solo mtDNA is not enough evidence, especially when the morphological records don’t support it. AmbaDarla (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the papers were focusing on P. atrox, not P. l. spelaea.  --Mr Fink (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  It really IS a lion, Folks! 

message: Again, the article reflect the old statement that Panthera atrox was a lion, even when the new fact is that this cat was not a lion and was more related with the jaguars.
I suggest to change all the thematic of the article to show the new scientific data, not the old statements. Check that mDNA studies are NOT conclusive and Nuclear DNA most be tested yet. On the other side, the morphological studies shows that this great cat is an species by they own. AmbaDarla (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The mitochondrial DNA studies are more conclusive than the morphological studies and strongly indicate that the closest relative of the American lion is the Eurasian cave lion. Whether it's a species or subspecies is unresolved, but atrox and spelaea should be treated the same since they appear to represent sister lineages. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense, the study of Barnett is older (is from January 2009, while that of Christiansen & Harris is of September of 2009) and use only FOUR skulls of P. atrox. Morphological studies, in this case are more accurate as use a larger sample, which give it a great statistical support. The molecular study also shows that the LEOPARD is closer for lion than P. atrox, something that was proved by recent morphological studies. So Wolfman (or I must say PHDcsfan from Yuku forum?), don’t stated silly thing like “genetic analysis (Barnett ref.) trumps morphological analysis (Christiansen & Harris)” as this is not true. For the contrary, Christiansen & Harris debunked Barnett study. I will change ALL to the previous statement, after all, Wikipedia most by at the edge of the new investigations, not OLD myths. AmbaDarla (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were talking about 2 different morphological studies, or 2 different genetic studies, and the second study was much more thorough and definitive than the first, it would make sense to disregard the earlier study. However, comparing morphological and genetic studies is like comparing apples and oranges; timing means little here, and the 8 month disparity is meaningless. With morphology, it's difficult to know what selective pressures might have been operating to confound the analysis. Analysis of sequences of two different genes (HVR1 and ATP8) both showed that atrox and spelaea are sister lineages. Since we have good genetic evidence for the hypothesis that spelaea andleo are the closest and second closest relatives, respectively, of atrox, and since both spelaea andleo are commonly described as lions, it seems reasonable to call atrox a lion. We should treat spelaea and atrox consistently. It is also worth remembering that phylogeny is not the only factor influencing sharing of a common name. The leopard, clouded leopard and snow leopard are not closely related (see Davis et al., 2010). Also, the American cheetah is probably closer to the cougar than to the cheetah. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happen now here? 

message: I see we just lost the species name in the taxobox. Could we have some objective data or citations to indicate that the subspecies is the preferred classification? When I do a Google Scholar search for "Panthera atrox" (since 2010) I get 86 hits, while "Panthera leo atrox" only gives 36. That doesn't look like a consensus for Panthera leo atrox. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What's up with that indeed, if I remember correctly the most recent genetic evidence points to neither the American lion nor the cave lion being subspecies of the modern lion, very closely related to Panthera leo as a whole but not within it. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's just change it to species then. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What paper are you referring to? Barnett et al. (2009) use P. leo atrox. If we go back to P. atrox, we'd probably have to do the same for spelaea . A possibly better alternative from my perspective is going back to presenting the 2 alternative taxonomic appellations in the taxobox. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant Bernett et al (2009) yes and welp, you are right they have it as P. leo atrox, I like your idea of reverting as it was before. Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is too cluttered, and if there is even a slight scientific consensus, we should go with that, and present disagreement as prose in the article itself. Similar disagreements are common, but rarely reflected in the taxobox, where the most prevalent theory should be presented. FunkMonk (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then Panthera atrox it is, looking up "Panthera atrox" and "Panthera leo atrox" in google scholar with a custom range of 2000-2014  the results are 216 vs 96, however in the case of "Panthera spelaea" vs "Panthera leo spelaea" is the other way around with 388 vs 416 articles. Mike.BRZ (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, from a logical standpoint atrox and spelaea should be treated the same, since they are sister lineages and thus equally distantly related to extant P. leo. One could argue that the viewpoint of Barnett et al. deserves extra weight, given that theirs is the most recent genetic analysis. I'm going to add a note to the taxoboxes of atrox and spelaea to point out the alternate classifications. Let me know what you think about that. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Given that we now have the Eurasian cave lion listed as Panthera spelaea, Panthera leo atrox for the American lion has become untenable. It would have to be either Panthera spelaea atrox or Panthera atrox, since the two are sister lineages. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species vs. subspecies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on American lion. 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/20120312055913/http://www.beringia.com/research/lion.html to http://www.beringia.com/research/lion.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I note that in the first paragraph of this article also known names reads "North American lion, Naegele’s giant jaguar or American cave lion". I have placed 'citation needed' against each of these. It is easy to find at least one researcher referring to the American lion by some other name, but that does not make it an also known as. I have requested citation for these being "typically used in reliable sources", not a name that appeared once or twice in research articles. Regards,  William Harris |talk  21:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common names 

message: "Evidence for predation on bison by American lions is particularly strong as a freeze-dried carcass nicknamed "Blue Babe" was discovered in Alaska and bears bite and claw marks from lions."
I recommend editing the above quotation from the article above to remove "bears."  It is obvious that it is referring to "bear" as in "have or display as a visible mark or feature" rather than the mammal.  However, given that this sentence refers to multiple north american large mammals, I would suggest using a different word or sentence structure to avoid any possible confusion. The words "and bears" in the above sentence could be replaced with "with", "displaying", and even "bearing" which would all cause less possible confusion.
: TimothyJosephWood 20:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habitat 

message: This article should be classified under the WikiProject Cryptozoology banner as there are some references in books on cryptozoology. The most notable being Cryptozoology A to Z by Jerome Clark and Loren L. Coleman.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What do these references claim? WolfmanSF (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Seems like melanistic jaguars would account for the "black panther" sightings. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Which scientists? Pretty incredible that a single animal can both go for a black panther and a maned lion... Considering how many privately owned large cats there are in the US, that would be the obvious source of such sightings... FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the American lion is not mentioned in the black panther article or present on the List of cryptids, it seems a tenuous connection. The problem with adding the WikiProject Cryptozoology banner here is that there would seem to be no information in Wikipedia (other than on this talk page) to justify it. 16:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptids and Cryptozoology 

message: A new paper suggests that the large jaguar Panthera onca mesembrina from Patagonia is actually P. atrox: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068317301094 Also, suggests that its external appearance was similar to jaguars, with a reddish coat... --Rextron (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The paper is presently cited once at the end of the "Distribution" paragraph. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The conclusion is already being dismissed by palaeontologists on social media, which of course isn't citable, but indicates a rebuttal will come. And that we shouldn't be removing restorations that don't show this supposed colour pattern, for example, which is an unprovable hypothesis anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've seen some comments about it. In any case some of this information should be added to the article of Panthera onca mesembrina.--Rextron (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

text: The P. atrox map looks suspect. It seems to be limited to the entirety of the current American and Mexican political maps. Copperheart0718 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presence in South America, and external appareance 

message: According to scientists from CONICET and the Argentinean Museum of Natural Sciences "Bernardino Rivadavia", it was discovered in a new analysis of fossil files found in Patagonia in the 19th century, that these correspond to the extinct Panthera leo atrox and not to Jaguars, recommending the review of the remains obtained in the Andean area.https://www.infobae.com/salud/ciencia/2017/12/03/confirman-que-el-leon-americano-habito-la-patagonia/http://infoblancosobrenegro.com/noticias/18943-por-fosiles-del-museo-de-la-plata-descubrieron-que-el-leon-americano-habito-la-patagonia
I recommend edit this article with this new info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuardianExer (talk • contribs) 04:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen the section directly above? FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The American Lion lived in Patagonia 

message: Leo1pard (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page views 

message: https://peerj.com/preprints/2327.pdf
New studies (2016) american lion weight 363kg at most  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The paper you're using has not finished peer-review yet, i.e., is not yet officially published and or is still ongoing.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong weight 

message: Please see/contribute to discussion at Talk:Lion#Request_for_comment:_How_many_subpages? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:American cheetah which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 06:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: The American lion is estimated to have measured 1.6 to 2.5 m (5 ft 3 in to 8 ft 2 in)[15] from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail and stood 1.2 m (3.9 ft) at the shoulder. Thus, it was a smaller than its contemporary competitor, the giant short-faced bear, which was the largest carnivoran of North America at the time Although American Lion was found killing Short Faced bear, and  larger than the saber-toothed cat, Smilodon Populator, which may have weighed up to around 400 kg (660 lb).[16] The  estimate (from a study in 1993) of 235-523 kg for males,[17] is seen as a vast overestimation by later researchers.[16][3] In 2008, the American lion was estimated to weigh up to 420 kg (930 lb).[18][19] A study in 2009 showed an average weight of 256 kg (564 lb) for males and 351 kg (774 lb) for the largest specimen analyzed.[3] Later, In 2012 American lion 523 kg weight on largest was proved correct on the basis of 18.5 inch skull and specimen. Later In 2021, A 19.5 inch skull was found its bones were thicker  and stronger than any cat that ever lived It is estimated to exceed 600 kg. Pro Gamerz+Memer (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Assuming that you want "Later, In 2012 American lion 523 kg weight on largest was proved correct on the basis of 18.5 inch skull and specimen. Later In 2021, A 19.5 inch skull was found its bones were thicker and stronger than any cat that ever lived It is estimated to exceed 600 kg" added on, you need to provide sources for these statements  Cannolis (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2022 

message: The American lion is estimated to have measured 1.6 to 2.5 m (5 ft 3 in to 8 ft 2 in)[15] from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail and stood 1.2 m (3.9 ft) at the shoulder. Thus, it was a smaller than its contemporary competitor, the giant short-faced bear, which was the largest carnivoran of North America at the time Although American Lion was found killing Short Faced bear, and  larger than the saber-toothed cat, Smilodon Populator, which may have weighed up to around 400 kg (660 lb).[16] The  estimate (from a study in 1993) of 235-523 kg for males,[17] is seen as a vast overestimation by later researchers.[16][3] In 2008, the American lion was estimated to weigh up to 420 kg (930 lb).[18][19] A study in 2009 showed an average weight of 256 kg (564 lb) for males and 351 kg (774 lb) for the largest specimen analyzed.[3] Later, In 2012 American lion 523 kg weight on largest was proved correct on the basis of 18.5 inch skull and specimen. Later In 2021, A 19.5 inch skull was found its bones were thicker  and stronger than any cat that ever lived. It is analysed to exceed 600 kg. 223.225.229.97 (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2022 

message: The American lion is estimated to have measured 1.6 to 2.5 m (5 ft 3 in to 8 ft 2 in)[15] from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail and stood 1.2 m (3.9 ft) at the shoulder. Thus, it was a smaller than its contemporary competitor, the giant short-faced bear, which was the largest carnivoran of North America at the time Although American Lion was found killing Short Faced bear, and  was larger than the saber-toothed cat, Smilodon Populator, which may have weighed around 400 kg (660 lb).[16] The  estimate (from a study in 1993) of 235-523 kg for males,[17] is seen as a vast overestimation by later researchers.[16][3] In 2008, the American lion was estimated to weigh up to 420 kg (930 lb).[18][19] A study in 2009 showed an average weight of 256 kg (564 lb) for males and 351 kg (774 lb) for the largest specimen analyzed.[3] Later, In 2012 American lion 523 kg weight on largest was proved correct on the basis of 18.5 inch skull and specimen
https://www.dinosaurcorporation.com/amliskleoat.html
Later In 2021, A 19.5 inch skull was found its bones were thicker  and stronger than any cat that ever lived It is estimated to exceed 600 kg 
19.5 inch Skull Link  kghttps://www.mediafire.com/view/ha51osc6mkuc3yo Pro Gamerz+Memer (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A website selling skull casts is hardly a WP:RS. Also please stop spamming edit requests, one at a time is sufficient.  Cannolis (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2022 (3) 

message: The source does not quote such unreasonably precise figures, is careful to say that the figures that are quoted are estimates, and that they are figures for extant Lion species (NOT American Lions).
"The musculature of extant lions accounts for (on average) 57.1% of total body mass, then the remainder of body mass is 11.5% skin, 12.4% skeleton, 11.8% organs, about 4.6% blood and waste, and 2.7% fat."
 Drsruli (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: removed as it seems you are saying that the statistics do not apply to the subject of the article. In future please make such changes directly to the article. — Bilorv (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The body composition of Panthera atrox is 57.1% skeletal muscle, 12.4% bone, 11.8% organs, 11.5% skin and fur, 2.67% adipose tissue and 4.62% blood and waste." 

message: — Assignment last updated by Daisysandpeaches (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: BIO 476 - Paleoecology