Talk:Pantanal cat

message: Are we sure this is a Pantanal cat? It looks more like a margay to me, and certainly doesn't fit either the description in the accompanying text, or the only photo I've seen of a colocolo, which I understand is very similar. Anaxial (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: More research convinces me that the picture is definitely not of a Pantanal cat, so I'll remove it, and edit the Commons file accordingly. Unless anyone has any evidence to the contrary? Anaxial (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure looks like a margay to me.  However, this website shows the removed image as its exemplar of a Pantanal cat.  So maybe it's a copyvio, or the site got it from wikimedia.  Google image search not helpful.  No clue.  --Seduisant (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

text: ARKive has a picture of a Panatal cat (which it identifies as Leopardus colocolo), and it doesn't resemble a margay or a colocolo.  Hopeless.  --Seduisant (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ARKive presumably doesn't acknowledge them as two separate species, the distinction only having been made very recently. Which is doubtless why its proving difficult to track down any definitive image, let alone one available to use here. Anaxial (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxobox image

message: I note that the range map used here is unsourced, and contradicts the only published range maps I can find online   (both of which are, of course, copyrighted). I've had no response from the image's uploader, so should we still be using it, or does somebody have a reliable source for it? Anaxial (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the map. It was misleading, including large parts of the Andean highlands and foothills in NW Argentina, and S and W. Bolivia. If you follow the 3-species split, these regions are inhabited by the Pampas (not Pantanal) cat. The first map (Garcia-Perea, 1994) linked in the above comment is also problematic, as it is highly outdated. However, the second map (Barstow & Leslie, 2012) would be a good basis for a map for the species on wiki, especially if expanded slightly to include the semi-open habitat of northeastern Bolivia (see this), which essentially is an extension of the "true" Pantanal. Also note that the so-called "possible range" on the map in Barstow & Leslie, 2012 represents parts of its actual known range, as they mention documented records in Minas Gerais (=easternmost range limit) and S. Maranhão (=northernmost range limit). Unsurprising, as the species is well known from Cerrado, and these states represent the limits of this habitat. Other Brazilian states where nominate braccatus is known are Mato Grosso do Sul, Mato Grosso, Goiás, Bahia, Tocantins and S. Piauí, leaving munoai in Rio Grande do Sul (Nascimento, 2010: Revisao taxonómica do genero Leopardus Grayi, 1842; Bagno et al 2004: Notes on the Natural History and Conservation Status of Pampas Cat, Oncifelis colocolo, in the Brazilian Cerrado). 62.107.194.166 (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Range map

message: There is a problem with referring to the Pantanal cat as subspecies Leopardus colocolo braccatus. The proposal to make the Pantanal cat a species included two subspecies, L. c. braccatus and L. c. munoai. The latest revision to one species of Pampas cat recognises both these subspecies. The Pantanal cat as defined by Garcia-Perea refers to both subspecies. There is a similar problem with the colocolo, which includes both L. c. colocolo and L. c. wolffsohni (although the latter looks more like the northern Pampas cats). I don't know if the new CatSG assessment dealt with the common names. I'm not sure what the best solution is here. Jts1882 (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also noted this. And in the changes under Characteristics used only the particular info about Garcia-Perea's type 3, which she thought to be L. braccatus. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pantanal cat as subspecies