Talk:Panthera

message: I've just created :Category:Panthera species, which gathers all the articles on Panthera species. Does this duplicate what is done here at Panthera, or is the category useful as well? (I also created some missing redirects, and bypassed some double redirects, so the work wasn't entirely about creating the category). Carcharoth 14:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also compare with this. Carcharoth 14:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: @dnlcaissie  Can you be abit more concrete?--Altaileopard 09:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category versus list 

message: I made this edit, because this paper does not dicribe the Panthera as the most recently evolved cats, but mention older papers, which says, that the Pantherinae are the 
most recently evolved felid group. But as the Felinae are (According to all recent studies) a sister taxon of the Pantherinae, both groups are exactly of the same age. But that does not say anything about the genus Panthera itself.--Altaileopard 15:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of Panthera 

message: Ok, before someone inserts a tree again, see Talk:Jaguar#Taxonomy_section before making an arbitrary choice for a specific tree. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution 

message: The interwiki listing is hidden, but I don't know how to fix it.--RR' 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical problems with the iw

message: the dictionary entry at <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=panther> poses a different etymology for "panther." the Tiger article here links to this, claiming the greek "all hunting/beast" is folk etymology. anyone have additional sources?
Metanoid (talk, email) 11:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's time to correct this entry in the article. The notice is now two years old! The American Heritage Dictionary says that the etymology of the word is unknown. I will change the entry in the article if a change is not forthcoming soon. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Random House says the "hunting/beast" thing is bogus.Seduisant (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Panther" etymology 

message: A few weeks ago, I implemented recent insights regarding the taxonomic position of the snow leopard. This has resulted in the disbanding of the genus Uncia, thus moving the snow leopard to the genus Panthera. These changes were quickly reverted, as the current position of the snow leopard was considered to be still uncertain. That may have been true a few weeks ago - however on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals there has been a discussion regarding this subject. It was more or less decided that the Handbook of the Mammals of the World is now considered to be an acceptable source for taxonomic changes (in respect to the MSW). According to this Handbook, the snow leopard should be moved from Uncia to Panthera. I think these changes should be (re-)implemented on the Panthera article. DaMatriX (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Until today, the article was citing the 2006 issue of the IUCN Red List as supporting retention of Uncia. This used a 2002 assessment. It now has a newer assessment dating from 2008, which uses Panthera uncia as the title and identifies Uncia uncia as a synonym. I've updated the reference and amended the Evolution section (2nd para) accordingly. The lead section has the words "The snow leopard, Uncia uncia, which is sometimes included within Panthera ...". I haven't touched it, but does that wording properly reflect the current balance of views? --Stfg (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It totally doesn't.  I just finished running around reading the latest phylogenetic studies on Panthera I could find on PubMed(Davis 2010, Wei 2011), and they all switched over to P. uncia... and the snow leopard + tiger clade is very well supported.  I think the intro should just go ahead and talk about the 5 Panthera species, at most mention that snow leopards were only recently recognized to be in Panthera. I'll come back here in a few weeks, if no one has any objections I'll rewrite the intro. Blueshifter (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disbanding Uncia 

message: Pundareek is Sanskrit for Lotus, this is a fact, one can find that online everywhere. Somebody on the net has wrongly translated it as "Tiger", and that reference is being used here on Wikipedia, how can we correct that please? The actual sanskrit word for Tiger is "Vyaghra", which is the root for the modern Hindi word for Tiger "Baagh" Lilaac (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panther etymology Pundareek? 

message: The picture diplaying panthera range seems to be inconsistent with the picture showing the leopard distribution in the article on the leopard. It shows that the leopard is present but fragmented in almost all of southern Asia. /Kiewbra (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Panthera range

message: It was recently genetically proven, that the Ethiopian or Abyssinian Lion is a subspecies, different of any other Lion.
So Wikipedia get this right, get informed, it was a study of a laboratory in the U.K., i
do not know more, but it was on television in Germany. It seems like Wikipedia do not bother any mistake on their website. Fix it quickly.
PS: It is obvious that almost every species on the planet has somehow its roots in Africa,
even when there are yet some fossils left to find before proof.
GL
: Or that the Ethiopian lion is a mixture between clades of African lions, let me explain below. Leo1pard (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethiopian Lion 

message: Is this even a real animal? I cannot find any info on them in the literature, Google scholar and online except here. I am thinking of removing them and deleting their page. 4444hhhh (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a typo for Panthera gombaszoegensis. Burmeister (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I am gonna redirect it or delete it. I am surprised for the nine years that article has been up nobody bothered trying to fix it.--4444hhhh (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panthera combaszoe 

message: Genus_authority is not displaying! I think this has something to do with the entry directly above not being genus = Panthera, but I'm not sure how to fix it! SEThorpe (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has now fixed the problem, but also removed without justification the type species info. I will replace it pending justification for removal ... SEThorpe (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem in Taxobox 

message: The revisions for lion and tiger taxonomy have introduced some inconsistencies, I would argue errors. The Cape lion does not include the Congo lion and the Javan tiger does not include the Sumatran tiger. What the revisions say is that the trinomical Panthera tigris sondaica, which was originally ascribed to the Javan tiger, is now considered to include the Javan, Bali and Sumatran tigers. The Javan tiger is still the tiger that lived on Java, the Bali and Sumatran tigers are not a type of Javan tiger; all three are Sunda tigers. 
The listing is difficult as there are no clear common names assigned to the newly defined trinomials, except for the Sunda tiger. I would suggest ...
*Sunda tiger P. t. sondaica including 
**†Javan tiger P. t. sondaica sensu stricto 
**†Bali tiger formerly P. t. balica 
**Sumatran tiger formerly P t. sumatrae
The same approach should be taken for continental tiger, north Africa/Asiatic  lion and southern/eastern lions, although the common names used require consideration. An alternative would be to list the trinomical with the regions covered in parenthesis, e.g. "Panthera leo leo (lions of North Africa, West Africa and Asia), including:".   Jts1882 | talk  13:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Great suggestion, Jts1882, to use 'sensu stricto'!! Will you change this then? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've changed the tiger accordingly. However, how do we handle the lion, given Leo1pard's comment on the lion admixture across the Sahel?   Jts1882 | talk  14:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Introducing 'sensu stricto' was a brilliant idea! You may have already seen that I collated all the info about Congo lion into Central African lion and placed a redirect accordingly. This will make it far easier in future to update only one, namely latter article. Re admixture zones: Bertola et al. (2016) grouped the northern Central African pops with the Northern Group and hypothesized about the 2 admixture zones -- one in the region of southeastern Ethiopia and the other in eastern South Africa -- that this phenomenon may be due to translocations. BhagyaMani (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue about an admixture between P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita in places like Ethiopia, or even that places like Northeast Africa and Central Africa are home to both clades, is why I put in those notes next to formerly recognized subspecies for those areas. This document, despite being from a reputable group like the IUCN Cat Specialist Group, is too simplistic about African lions, genetically speaking. Leo1pard (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

text: But the document does not even say that for example, P. l. azandica was subsumed to P. l. leo, so what is the need of the specific divisions, like for P. l. azandica within P. l. leo in this article, if we are not even going to discuss the genetics related to them? Leo1pard (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common names and trinomials after taxonomic revision 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Panthera. 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/20130502101107/http://www.cbs.umn.edu/sites/default/files/public/downloads/Biochemical_Genetic_Variation_in_Geographic_Isolates_of_African_and_Asiatic_Lions.pdf to http://www.cbs.umn.edu/sites/default/files/public/downloads/Biochemical_Genetic_Variation_in_Geographic_Isolates_of_African_and_Asiatic_Lions.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please see this. Leo1pard (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific names 

message: According to the ICZN:
So I think Felis pardus is correct.   Jts1882 | talk  14:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I thought so too! Thanks for confirming. --BhagyaMani (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I just read Oken (1816) again, hoping to find an explanation why he used Panthera: he referred to colocola for its whitish skin with yellow spots. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type species 

message: All in America and are the same in biology. You can mate them. Lion, Tiger ...Liger. Panion...I can keep going. Stop trying to control information Wiki. You (Wiki) don't know. 172.56.82.219 (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, mountain lions are not in the same species, or even the same genus, as panthers and jaguars. Meters (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountain Lions, Puma, Jaguar, Panther... 

message: Big cat may be moved to the article Panthera because it commonly refers to this genus.The information  will be in the section Panthera:Species.the non-Panthera Species of commonly called Big cats will have  their information on the bottom of the article. It will be told each in one paragraph in the  fewest words possible to properly  explain these Species. JanZakrzewski (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose: as the intro to the article Big cat quite clearly states, the colloquial term doesn't refer to this genus, it refers to a wider, non-taxonomical grouping. There is nothing to be gained by getting rid of the quality existing article Big cat, and integrating information about non-Panthera animals into the Panthera article would be confusing. There's also plenty of precedent for having separate articles for colloquial groupings of animals which do not fully align with taxonomical groups. See, for example, whale. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Oppose + agree with AntiDionysius's line of reasoning. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Oppose per AntiDionysius. These are different topics and shoehorning the non-Panthera species into the Panthera article makes no sense to me. Meters (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Oppose: These terms are not close enough to by synonymous. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Oppose: Not the same thing and big cat is not a common name for the genus. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of Big cat to Panthera