Talk:Jaguar/Archive 1

message: Dear Stassa and Malix, i suspect the information on the weight and size of the jaguar is incorrect, those specific dimensions resemble more closely a cougar or a panther, but i have reason to believe the cats that inhabit exclusively the amazon regions of peru and brasil are bigger and stronger animals; i have been able to visit cat zoo's around the zones of Lima and Iquitos, the tiger in lima's most notable zoo (parque de las leyendas) is roughly the same size as the jaguars in iquito's 'serpentario' (zoo) close to the amazon river.
One thing that might explain why they are bigger in the Amazon may be because they share their habitat with the biggest snake in the world. I suspect this article is often confused with panthers because the animals in iquitos are quite different from the pictures you present here; which look like panthers.
Theres an easy way to tell; a jaguar's head is not proportionate to it's body, they have really large heads and their paws are also significantly bigger, like the foot of a human; and these ones more often than not possess blue eyes. None of these crucial features are present in the cats of those pictures.
Edited 9:55- oh scrap that i found a link to an unexisting article: peruvian jaguar (otorongo) i might fill it out.
Mazymastiri 09:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consideration for future change

message: Let me say one thing: Because wiki is meant to be an online encyclopaedia for everyone, and I respected this idea, I tried to put only objective information, as objective as possible. Do not get me wrong, I love the big cats, and I have spent the last 14 years finding as much as I can,  about the big cats I love, using every means that I can about the five big cat types: tiger, leopard, puma( the largest of small cat family to be precise, still, bigger than leopard), jaguar and cheetah. During the last 4 years, I have read a lot of English scientific articles and books about big cats too. And I am an Asian, I live near tigers and leopards the most, and my people are among those know about the tigers the best in the world, this I can proudly say. I hate biased information, and to get it straight: somthing comes from the book, does not mean it right. And I have proved this more than once. So whenever I found something suspicious to me, I tried my best to verify it. If the truth goes against my peronal interest, I will bitterly accept it, but only after I find out for myself. When something unfair is spoken about tigers or any other animals that I know and love, I can't stand it. Tigers weighed 120kg take down 1200 kg bull gaur whenever it manages to find one, that surprised me when I first read it 8 years ago, but now I know very clearly, that is the tiger housekeeping task. Analysis of anatomy and jaw structures like that I have read countless time, both in my own language and in English. The more I read, the more I realize they prove nothing. It is all relative, and estimate, sometimes they are no better than garbage. It just doesn't reflect the real thing in wild life, simple as that. if you want more discussion or have any questions regarding big cats and preys, you better go to real forests, staying there rgularly and making observations for yourself. 
If you do not believe me, it's fine. Do not make enemy of each other for unworthy reason. By the way, can you give me the name of those books, every one of them, so I can read for myself? I would love to read anything about the big cats. To tell the truth, this is the the 1st time ever I come across so-called naturalists who would even bother compare animals by measuring that pound-for-pound whatever. That is strange, because it serves no real, serious purpose, and for me personally, ridiculously funny and, pointless. Perhaps there is some television program about this strange topic, these kinds of programs are for entertainment, sortta like Animal face-off, they are merely for killing time. Nature is not something we can measure physically with our mortal eyes. It takes a lifetime of dedication, even more than that to explore its myth. With 14 years studying about nature, I realize that what i know is still very tiny, and alot more I want to know. With that, let me sorry for saying that pound-for-pound tiger better than jaguar or others, such meaningless comparison goes against my own perspective of borderless nature, and it shames the animals too, if they can hear us talking about them that way. Again, if you do not agree with me, it is the matter of opinion. But we'd better respect the animals too, when we talk about them. Hope that you can understand my thinking.    
:I didn't entirely understand what point you were trying to prove or some of the things you said but I get the general opinion. We all love big cats here, and no one is tiger bashing. The tiger and the lion are the two most popular/recognizable cats in the world because tigers have stripes and lions have a destinctive mane. Doesn't necessary mean one is better than the other. As far as naturalists claiming the pound for pound thing being silly, tell that to National Geographic. Those are the serious scientists and naturalists who worked very hard to research to find out the statistics they deem proper to present to he world as the foremost leading in knowledge of the natural world. They wouldn't think it was funny such a thing was called "silly" and "worhtless." No one here is really enemies, just arguing for knowledge sake. New information is always welcomed but most importantly sited. And as for me personally, I've seen a few episodes of Animal Face-Off and have participated in the debates representing the big cats. Some of those episodes are a joke. More specifically the jaguar/anaconda episode in which the jaguar loses because it can not breath underwater after being dragged, ironically being computer animated just after I watched a real documentation ("Jungle Cat," kind of old) of a jaguar killing a full grown anaconda - and not the other way around. Anacondas' do get big, can open their mouths pretty wide, have been known to swallow children, jaguar cubs, and old/sick jaguars, but never a full grown healthy jaguar. It's the other way around. Regardless, I was not the only person upset with that show. Many other big cat fanatics will agree with some oddities in other battles. More importantly, tigers are a strongly mediatised animal, while the jaguar remains the least studied of the big cats. This really isn't the place to argue about tigers (which is sadly brought into the discussion of the other big cats as well) but more so to focus on a rarely studied and somewhat spotlight neglected animal; the jaguar. 
I 'm not sure what your point is here, both of you. It sounds like an argument about whether Superman or Hulk is strongest. It's good you 've managed to keep that out of the main article.
Anyway, stop squabbling. Cheetahs are the fastest and there's no contesting that (and Batman is best) :P Stassa 13:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conisderation for change

message: In portuguese, "jaguar" means the US equivalent of the "black jaguar" or "melanistic jaguar".
The equivalent to the US term jaguar would be "onça" or "onça-pintada"LtDoc 05:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognate 

message: I can't find a source for the statement that only two are raised to adulthood. Anyone know where it came from? Marskell 08:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a source for that statement either. Joelito (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed a fact request. I'll leave it a couple of days and remove the statement if there is no answer. Marskell 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...raising no more than two of them to adulthood." 

message: "In the early 1900s, the jaguars' range actually extended as far north as Southern California and western Texas". I assume a permanent populations is meant. However, the IUCN states "disappearance in the mid-1900's from the southwestern US and northern Mexico". That's a half century difference. Any source that anyone knows of for the southern California bit? Marskell 21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In the early 1900s, the jaguars' range..." 

message: They're totally going batshit and seem to be changing every time I load it. Does anyway now what the problem is? Marskell 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you had a little problem with the refs which I fixed. You must remember to use </ref> at the end of the reference. You were using . When using a reference twice then you use . Joelito (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, wiki itself was having a problem :). For 24 hours citations were screwy. See this thread for instance. Apparently fixed, though I really hope it doesn't happen again because it's a damn waste of time. Thanks for continuing to look at this article, anyhow. I've been sort of talking to the void. I'll try to remember about where to put the slash! Marskell 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The refs 

message: Rather than making the FAC far too massive, I thought I'd list the refs as a checklist to work through here. There are thirty-eight at present:
Good
----
* Two explanatory notes
* 13 research papers
* One US Fed Gov
* The Hamdig (Ecology Online Sweden) link gives a brief over-view of various papers and has an extensive bibliography
* Two from the IUCN
* Seven from the lengthy Guidelines for Captive Management of Jaguars (including one briefer factsheet) 
* = 26
I would call it acceptable
----
* World wildlife fund
* Wildlife Conservation Society
* Akron zoo (for general info)
* Phoenix zoo (for general info)
* The National Geographic Special (for a generic comparison)
* Illinois State Museum
* The local gov glossary defining umbrella species.
* Three deal with etymology and I think are fine for the limited context
* Mongabay.com. Move this up: his references are actually quite extensive and well-described. I think I will just have to qualify it carefully.
* An on-line re melanism. Written by an academic, with bibliography.
* A radio station noting jag is national animal of Guyana. I can probably find a gov source.
* One Arizona gov link describing the cats appearances there
* = 14
Uncertain
----
* Encarta. What's the consensus on this one? I've tried to limit its use here, though it does have a lot of info.
* Carnivore preservation trust. Doesn't cite sources and should probably go. I didn't notice it was written by students, though.
* National Audubon Society. This was a bit of "colour" added from personal travel story. I can remove it, if people like.
* Tigerhomes. Doesn't cite sources and should probably go to.  
* South West Wildlife. Seems a legitimate conservation group, but doesn't cite its sources. Not sure. Really don't need this one.
* = 1
Sing zoo, BBC, and Animal Diversity Web have all been eliminated. Marskell 09:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References used 

message: Edited the opening sentence in lieu of the fact that the Jaguar is a mammal, not a reptile.
Mattcolville 07:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were looking at a vandalized version. It's a risk that increases when an article is on the main page... Marskell 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not A Reptile 

message: I would just like to clarify that "ther" on its own doesn't mean anything in Greek. It's the root for "θηρίον" (therion, beast, come to mean mostly beast of prey), "θηρευτής" (thereutis, predator) and "θήραμα" (therama, pray), but it does need a termination or a prefix to make any sense. 
This Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_%28legendary_creature%29
identifies "panther" as a legendary and later heraldic beast. I 'm not sure why; the animal shown is clearly a big cat. So why "mythological"?
It is true that modern Greece is notable for the complete absence of big cats from its area. However, the Greek language has a word for lion and a word for leopard ("λέων", leon and "λεοπάρδαλις", leopardalis, respectively). Sculptures of possibly maneless lions are prominent in Mycene, as in the "Gate of Lions" and a mosaic of what is commonly referred to as a leopard (but is obviously a Cheetah if you ask me) can be found on a Minoan palace (forgive the vagueness; I can't remember where exactly. I think in Thera actually). 
Granted, this doesn't necessarily mean that big cats roamed the Greek countryside in times past. It is a strong possibility, but the Greeks might have seen the animals in their travels to and from Greece at any point in their history. Of course, they could just as well have simply hunted them to extinction, as usual. 
Now, whether they had seen enough big cats of different species to need a separate word to describe them as a group, such as "panther" that too is open to debate. Obviously, they never needed a word for "jaguar"!
In any case, I 'm not convinced about the etymology of the word panther (no offence meant to the article's editor). I 'd like to look at this a little more carefully before I venture a verdict. It is quite possibly folk etymology as you say, but the word just sounds so Greek to my ears- perhaps though it's just that it sounds familiar instead of actually Greek. Oh well. You can't escape your upbringing I guess. Stassa 13:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All Greek to me ;)...though thanks for the in-depth comment. The very brief description of this was included to fill out the small section; I do trust this but only as an amateur. As noted below, I thought the page was fairly diligent in this regard, not just throwing out etymologies without looking. Perhaps in this case a further dig is in order. Panthera itself may be the place to start, if you have sources. Marskell 22:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind, scientific names are often a combinatio of greek, latin and latinised stuff. Effectvely only going back to the orignal desciprion will solve the issue. I would reply on http://www.etymonline.com as they are generally quite reliable. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: As a student of language "Tupi", I would like to say that Jaguar came only from "Tupi", and not from "Tupi-guarani". Actually, Tupi-guarani is not a language, but a group of more than 20 indigenous languages. One of these languages is called itself Tupi and known as "Old Tupi" or "Classic Tupi", just because it was spoken centuries ago and it is not spoken in its original form anymore.
So I'm changing the term "Tupi-guarani" by "Tupi".
:Eek. This is the second note on etymology. The page relies on the sources found. I thought we did well here because we didn't repeat the (apparent) error that the name denotes "beast that kills in a single bound". Virtually every source would throw this in as an after-thought but it seems to be wrong. If you have a Tupi-English source on the name that is more precise, that would be great. Marskell 22:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first source is reliable, the second http://www.iberianature.com/trivia/etymology_mammals.htm relies on wikipedia, and some digging suggest it is a self referece. The first indicates tupi language, as our natuve speaker correctly indicates, the second is verbatim the wikipedia text ...... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's the other way around. We rely on it verbatim. Marskell 09:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says itself that it uses wikipedia as a source, and as such, it is a not-to-use page for reference, because you can get circularity. If you do a search, only that page and wikipedia have it, and it is nowhere else used.....  -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user mentioned below listed a few Spanish sources on my talk, so I think we're OK. Marskell 21:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Scratch. The sentence appears before the source, so it may be circular. I've asked User:Marianocecowski who added it in April. Marskell 10:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thx for looking Yomangani. Yes, rendering it doubtful rather than sure would be best. Presumably the term underwent extension or narrowing when borrowed from one to the other. Do you want to try the edit, given the Spanish? Marskell 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 2 

message: i just wanted to say that very few species articles here on wikipedia offer anything more than a bland rundown of general data.  Most are nothing more than stubs.  but this article has dealt with the topic in an in-depth way that is what wikipedia is all about. -Zappernapper 20:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Marskell 10:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations to editors 

message: Would this link be OK? I wanted to note 6% melanism. Marskell 12:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on what I know, seems a resonable estimate. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Melanism

message: Why was my inclusion of the anaconda as jaguar prey reverted from the jaguar page? I have read about this on a number of occasions. Is the source considered not credible or do you not believe that this occurs? 70.22.102.128 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was reverted because the reference provided does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This article has been extensively researched so only reliable sources are considered. Joelito (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anaconda 

message: If that's not biased towards evolution, then what is?  There are many people around the world that believe the earth to be no more than 7000 years old.  The authors of this article should be more specific as to who said what.  Panda
:This article is "biased towards" scientific research, no more or less. Follow the many links to research papers to learn more. Marskell 01:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't traffic in "universal belief". There are, however, dozens of links that show what researchers dealing in testable scientific work believe, which is enought for a general purpose encyclopedia; none of the pieces I looked at showed a species lineage in the range of 7k yrs. Marskell 20:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Millions of years ago??? 

message: Who decided upon Jaguar rather than jaguar? This has been gone over: yes, it's (usually) a proper noun, but proper noun animal names do not usually take the upper case in common usage (the bear, not the Bear). I'm changing back. This needs to be defended, if it's going to be changed. Marskell 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper case 

message: Why is the Brazilian Portuguese name included in the intro paragraph? Let's just add the Tupi-Guarani name too, and maybe the Quechua one, and the Spanish on while we're at it.  Then the Continental Portuguese name, then the French one, the Italian one, the Dutch one too, the Suriname Dutch one too. Let's just go one and one until we have the the name in every language that has ever been and their way of saying Jaguar.  
NO, put the common English name (this is ENGLISH Language wikipedia, nao e portugues nem brasileiro), any other names commonly used to refer to the animal and it's BINOMIAL LATIN Biological name... THAT'S IT.
If it's that important to you add this "(Brazilian Portuguese: onça pintada)" to a section about what it is called in other languages.
_______________________
My father (whom I did not grow up with) and his son from his second marriage live deep in the woods in northern Louisiana in Union Parish.  They, as most of that side of my family, are obsessive hunters.  Most of their free time they spend in the woods, either hunting or just sitting and thinking.  Anyway, I think it worth noting that they my father, brother, and one of my aunts (the one who hunts the most) have all told me that they have a number of times seen what they describe as a "black" or "dark spotted" mountain lion during their long sittings on any one of their deer stands. (A deer stand is usually a ladder affixed to a tree with a sitting post at the top from which the hunter observes his surroundings).  From the looks of this article, I wonder if it's possible that what they have seen is a rare sighting of a jaguar.  I also, about 6 years ago, when driving home one night, saw a HUGE cat like animal run across the road (I also grew up in a rural area, though less rural than where my father's side of the family lives).  This animal looked similar to a bob-cat, only much much larger -- and I could not see whether had a tail as it was getting dark at the time, but the head-lights of my vehical clearly revealed that whatever it was it was spotted similar to a bob-cat, again ~ only larger.  Just thought someone might have something to say about this, as I haven't found any evidence of black or dark spotted "mountain lions" but there are such type jaguars. Omedyashar 09:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazilian Portuguese Name... 

message: Are there still occasional sightings of jaguars in the USA?--Altaileopard 15:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occurrence in USA? 

message: why is there no mention of this at all? are jaguars dangerous, or would they run a mile from a human? have there ever been any cases of jaguars killing humans? 81.155.246.188 23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: dangerous? not dangerous? would kill a man? whut?

message: I wonder the article's statement "It has been suggested that the jaguar has the strongest bite of all felids, and the second strongest of all mammals". I guess it's to the size of the animal, for surely an orca or sperm whale can bite with a greater force. -But should we then calculate the same way how hard a rat or a shrew can bite?
--88.217.54.221 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The strength of the bite 

message: The green and red are not explained.  Please fix...Smarkflea (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range Maps 

message: How is the Jaguar considered near threatened when the U.S. population of Jaguars is almost extirpated from their range and the Amazon Rainforest is still having issues with clear cutting? What are they thinking because it just doesn't add up to be correct. I would think the Jaguar would at least be considered Endangered at least I'm pretty positive in the United States it is since it's only populations now are in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico maybe southern California.Mcelite (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The jaguar is a protected species in the United States under the Endangered Species Act, which has stopped the shooting of the animal for its pelt. In 2004, wildlife officials in Arizona photographed and documented jaguars in the southern part of the state. For any permanent population to thrive, protection from killing, an adequate prey base, and connectivity with Mexican populations are essential.[47]
* ... should be moved to the Conservation status section instead. I'll leave that decision to others. RN1970 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near Threatened? How?