Talk:Sunda clouded leopard

message: What's with the image? It looks edited. Syphe (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Edit? 

message: Clouded leopards, the secretive top-carnivore of South-East Asian rainforests: their distribution, status and conservation needs in Sabah, Malaysia.  The article and its images are all CC-BY 2.0.  Too bad there are no photos.--Pharos 07:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valuable open-access article 

message: Why is it that there are a lot of species that do not have articles, but when a new species is discovered an article goes up about it within a day? Dixonsej
:I would have thought that that is because the discovery and publicising of a new species attracts a lot of attention, which both prompts people to edit Wikipedia and provides an easy supply of references for articles. As for those species without articles, be bold and start articles yourself! Bondegezou 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with all of you: there is no species of predatory mammal that has no article. On the other hand, there are dozens of new species of insects described each day that don't. Large and furry does it, not newly discovered.complainer (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: Did Cuvier identify it as Neofelis diardi or as Neofelis nebulosa diardi?  What is the background of this, considering that the recent research confirming two species is only from 2006?--Pharos 17:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... a bit of "how to read" is in order. The parenthesis around the authority indicate that the author didn't describe it with this name, but that the species was later moved to the current name. However, you can not tell what Cuvier named it. The authority doesn't attach to the current name, but to the initial description of the species. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A good example of the history of a species can be gleaned from its synonyms. See Lion-tailed Macaque for such a listing in the taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The parentheses mean that when Cuvier named it he placed it in a different genus (presumably either Felis or maybe Panthera) and it was subsequently moved to a separate genus (Neofelis).  According to the trinomen article, subspecies weren't used much until after 1900, so Cuvier probably recognized N. diardi as a full species.  --Aranae 18:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Earlier names I've found are Felis Diardii or Felis macrorcelis or Felis marmota (the last I read elsewhere; of course all these came from before the separate species were identified).  The animal was also called "Diard's Cat" and the Sumatran name is "Rimau dahan".--Pharos 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the other Latin names as "synonyms" here, as well as at Clouded Leopard.  I hope that's the proper practice.--Pharos 18:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: diardii is clearly a synonym for diardi, but not of nebulosa.  Felis macrocelis Horsfield, 1825 is a synonym of nebulosa (but again, not of diardi) according to MSW.  Without a type locality I wouldn't know how to deal with marmota.  All of these synonyms will apply to only one or the oher and should not apply to both articles.  --Aranae 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Georges Cuvier]] 

message: Image:Neofelis diardi-Jardine1.jpg
Image:Neofelis diardi-Jardine2.jpg
I've now removed these from the article, per Harami's apparent knowledge on the matter.  It was probably confusing for most readers anyway.  The prints are still on the Commons page, and I suppose might deserve going into the article again, if someone knowledgeable ever decides to write a section on the mistaken reconstruction, and its significance in the study of the cat.--Pharos 04:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken reconstructions removed 

message: Jardine lived in 1874. The illustration, is therefore at least 132 years old. The caption says "Felis diardi", which seems to indicate that he already considered it a specious of its own. Other than the changed genus name, nothing has changed. So what are we celebrating? — Sebastian 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Back then, they did not have conclusive proof that it was a separate species. So, they classified it as a sub-species. The Clouded Leopard is an endangered animal, and it is only since December that they have officially reclassified the Bornean Clouded Leopard as a separate species. Nishkid64 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time of the drawing was made however, I'm not certain there was any clear idea even that there were two sub-groups.  "Felis diardi" was probably just an earlier name used for both; in fact, it's possible that the mainland Asian variety wasn't even known to European scientists when that name was first given.--Pharos 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that seems like a fair assessment. Nishkid64 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is new? 

message: Someone added that this has been called "Diard's Leopard".  I find no evidence of this, and have removed it; the feline was however historically called "Diard's Cat".  Just posting this here in case I missed any evidence.--Pharos 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I too found no evidence suggesting it was also called "Diard's Leopard". Google hits show nothing for "Diard's Leopard", but show ten for "Diard's Cat". Nishkid64 20:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colloquial names 

message: I'm just something of a casual observer but as such I guess I represent the average reader.
The questions I have after reading the article are:
:Who "discovered" this
:Where was it "discovered"
:When was it "discovered" (other than the oddly ambiguous 1800's guy reference and old sketch)
:How was it "discovered"
For what it's worth, these are the things I thought the article lacks.  I guess it could be that these aren't notable enough or whatever.  I was just curious and know this could very well be a featured article very soon since so many people are working on it.  -- JohnCub 00:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not even close to a featured article. Also, some of the questions you asked have been covered in the article. Some of the information is a bit foggy (such as "when was it discovered", as you stated), because there are not that many references on the subject at this moment. Some of these questions may not be answered in full extent since no one really knows the answer. In any case, we're looking for sources of information on this "new" species. Nishkid64 17:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Where When How

message: I think something's dodgy here. Is it really 50 pounds? A leopard's gotta be bigger than that.Wai Hong 12:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article says it is a medium sized cat, mainland version only gets to 44 pounds, and Despite its name, the Bornean Clouded Leopard is not closely related to the leopard.  JohnCub 13:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added weight and size with a reference twice. WAS 4.250 22:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: aside: Does anyone know who "officially" titled this species the *Bornean* Clouded Leopard, or was that designation purely for publicity purposes? i.e. there is already a Sumatran tiger, therefore the Clouded Leopard was designated Bornean to avoid competition for the most charismatic megafauna within the former geographic designation? (cynic me?)
The type specimen for macrocelis is definitely from Sumatra (Bengkulu to be precise) and that for diardi *must* be Sumatra, also, even though it was 'alleged' to be Java (repeated as 'fact' at least until 1939 in Pocock's definitive 'Fauna of British India'), given the travels of the relevant naturalists.
For the time being, I'll put "or Sumatran Clouded Leopard" on the first line pending any *official* source, but that should be an adequate alternative name regardless and was, indeed, in circulation prior to March 2007.
Thoughts? --Harami2000 12:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I suppose we'll have to look at that December 2006 issue of Current Biology (anyone have free access?).  On the cynical side of things, I did notice that the WWF press release takes advantage of the name to promote the group's "Heart of Borneo" project.  Not that it's not a good cause...--Pharos 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kitchener et al. paper refers solely to Neofelis diardi without using any common name. The Buckley-Beason et al. paper largely also just refers to Neofelis diardi. It does at one point refer to "Bornean clouded leopards" but their study only used Bornean specimens and their use of those words seems to be in the sense of "clouded leopards from Borneo" rather than an attempt to christen Neofelis diardi with a common name. Bondegezou 15:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: Wikipedia articles should be verifiable and not indluge in original research. If the only external sources we have call it a Bornean clouded leopard, then that's what we should call it, regardless of the fact that it is also found in Sumatra or our speculation that the WWF may have been biased in naming it. Bondegezou 15:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The WWF is in no way in charge of naming a species, four months after the relevant scientific papers; this being the impression currently given! If Wikipedia articles should be verifiable, where is the "official" source for Bornean Clouded Leopard? Lacking such an official source (if indeed one is required for a species' common name), the addition of a geographic prefix does not automatically make for an "official" name and any of the former subspecies pseduonyms are thus at *least* equally valid. Sumatran Clouded Leopard has been used in that context for the former subspecies in various sources both online and offline. For example, the 21st Century Tiger (i.e. co-funded by the Zoological Society of London) report dated 2005 at http://www.21stcenturytiger.org/projects/reports/Project1_FFI_Final_Report_2005.pdf clearly uses Sumatran Clouded Leopard as opposed to the adjacent textual reference to Malay sunbear which does not add a "Sumatran" prefix: this is no surprise as the type specimens for diardi/macrocelis originated from Sumatra, not Borneo.... For lack of any evidence that Bornean Clouded Leopard was in use prior to March 2007, the usage of Sumatran Clouded Leopard for the former subspecies name is at least as valid as a pseudonym in the current context. (This is not "indulging in original research", merely a statement of fact, I believe). Kitchener's paper, at least, in "Current Biology" sticks to scientific nomenclature with no proposal for the species common name. May I throw down the gauntlet in return to anyone who wishes to state that Bornean Clouded Leopard is the only correct common name form to evidence that usage *both* prior to March 2007 (for the former subspecies) and after March 2007 (for the currently designated species)?--Harami2000 17:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Common names are, just that, common names. There is no official source because there is no body charged with determining such matters. Nobody is in charge of them; all we have is usage. Everything I've seen about N. diardi as a separate species refers to it under the common name of the Bornean Clouded Leopard. A Google search for "Bornean clouded leopard" gives plenty of hits; one for "Sumatran Clouded Leopard" hardly gives any at all. Prior common names for when it was known scientifically as N. nebulosa diardi do, I agree with you, seem valid. However, as far as I can make out, it was generally known just as the Clouded Leopard, with various geographical descriptors used. Does the 21st Century Tiger report use the term "Sumatran Clouded Leopard" to refer to the full range of the species/subspecies, or just to the Sumatran population? If the former, then I agree that seems a valid citation for that common name. If the latter, it isn't. I am not stating that Bornean Clouded Leopard is the only correct common name, but I would like to see citations for alternatives. I don't see the need for evidence of the common name being used for the former subspecies. Bondegezou 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Are we even certain that anyone is trying to give this a common name?  Buckley-Beason et al. (2006) appear to be using Bornean clouded leopard in the sense of "clouded leopard from Borneo" and don't seem to be attempting to give it a name.  They didn't look at animals from Sumatra.  I'm also not convinced WWF is trying to name it either.  Again, their interest seems to focus on their work going on in Borneo and seem to be referring to the Bornean population of clouded leopards.  The genetic data seem to form the backbone of this discussion, and the Sumatran population gets pooled into it due to the Kitchener et al. (2006) paper (who don't attempt to use common names).  Somebody somewhere had to have listed the conservation status of this subspecies prior to the current news frenzy and they presumably used a common name. I'm with Bondegezou in saying that there's no such thing as a formal common name for mammals.  Bornean, Indonesian, or Sumatran all seem valid common names (all used in one source or another) to me.  --Aranae 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For all intents and purposes though, I do think "Bornean Clouded Leopard" should be considered the common name, to the extent that one exists.  It is this name that has been used in hundreds of news sources all over the world.  Yes, it does seem to have originated from a press release, but I guess that's just the way these things work — it does not seem likely, given all the publicity, that popular writers will adopt another name in the near future.--Pharos 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aranae is correct that the DNA analysis hinges totally on three specimens from Borneo, with none from Sumatra, per http://download.current-biology.com/supplementarydata/curbio/16/23/2371/DC1/mmc1.pdf . It's debatable whether pelage alone is adequate to describe the range of a species nowadays, as opposed to further phylogenetic analysis including specimens from the Sumatran population. Anyhow, that aside, from a historic perspective the main hang-up over providing something approaching a *definitive* common name for diardi in an historic context appears to have been the uncertain status of those animals in the Malayan peninsula owing to data deficiencies. (Contrary to the above, the scientific community does provide a strong lead on reinforcing or directing common name(s) "of choice"; hence the likes of "Amur tiger" on the first line under the entry for "Siberian tiger"). Even the IUCN's Wild Cats Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan (ed. Nowell and Jackson, 1996) includes the Malayan peninsula for diardi although that still appears to have been "provisional" all the way from Pocock in 1939... Coming back to the point at hand, though, as agreed with Aranae, there is nothing to suggest that "Bornean Clouded Leopard" is any more "valid" than "Sumatran Clouded Leopard" or "Indonesian Clouded Leopard" and if the usage of "Bornean Clouded Leopard" derives solely a single NGO press release based on genetic analysis of Bornean felines without proper consideration for the species as a whole, repeating that common name alone without any other options, clarification, or even a possible "name controversy" section (with/without historical context) seems to me to be more media-driven than an encyclopedia should be expected to be. (aside: Nothing on the IUCN site yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to see "Indonesian Clouded Leopard" or "Diard's Cat" (works AOK for the manul!) in due course).--Harami2000 03:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the opening paragraph, hopefully to cover the points being made. I still feel it smacks of original research for us to be bandying around alternate names if we're not seeing them being used widely, but I've phrased the introduction to be clearer that the "Bornean Clouded Leopard" designation comes from a particular source. Bondegezou 11:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I do like that revised phrasing ("Neofelis diardi is... and publicised under the name Bornean Clouded Leopard by...") much better since that leaves things much more open for any future developments and clarifies precisely the nature of the nomenclature. Would personally give the thumbs up to anyone who might suggest that format as a standard for any "new" species/subspecies entries of this nature.--Harami2000 14:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *The name has been proposed, lets wait a bit and see if it accepted. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 00:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is something that must be accepted by the zoological society first. Then a name change must come from a scientific reliable source like the Journal of Mammalogy. Then I would agree with a name change for the species. No different from when the Cougar's species name was changed officially from Felis concolor to Puma concolor.Mcelite (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bornean(?) Clouded Leopard 

message: See this. Leo1pard (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I used the name "[[Bornean clouded leopard]]" for the [[subspecies]] ''[[Neofelis diardi borneensis]]'', rather than the [[species]] ''[[Neofelis diardi]]'' 

message: Come on, Harami2000, I could easily compile this from your talk page comments alone, but someone I think you'd be better qualified.  Thanks.--Pharos 22:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "History of study" section needed 

message: Under WWF's link (http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/species/our_solutions/priority_species/clouded_leopard/index.cfm), they estimated the population to be around 10,000. So what category in the conservation status does it fit into? Threatened? OhanaUnited 06:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not for us to decide. That's for folks like IUCN to decide. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a very strange error that the WWF has actually linked to the IUCN page on the Amur Leopard there.--Pharos 12:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation status 

message: The Economist doesn't actually mention any scientist who challenges the status of the the species. It cunningly drops the name of the evolutionary biologist who has coined the term "species inflation", but thorough reading reveals that he doesn't say that it applies to the case in point. The Economist does its dirty job, which is arguing that economic development is more important than preservation and keeps at least to the minimal ethical standard of not openly lying; Wikipedia editors are invited to read its articles attentively, and do the same. --Complainer 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to remove some of the WP:WEASEL language in the Economist bit. However, I'm not convinced that we need this part at all. Alongside scientific journals, it seems to imply that there is scientific disagreement about this species. That may be, except, as the above comment notes, the Economist piece doesn't actually present any scientists disagreeing. So it appears that this is actually unattributed conjecture, and really not bringing any information to this Wikipedia article. — coelacan — 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, I don't think The Economist qualifies as enough of a domain expert to justify the inclusion of their speculation in the lead!  A brief mention later on in the article might be reasonable to help ensure that all points of view are represented, but putting it in the lead gives their inexpert innuendo undue weight, in my opinion.  Xtifr tälk 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we seem to have a consensus on the matter: I'm removing the neoliberist ravings. --Complainer 11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it should be in the article. The Economist is a respectable journal, and removing the entire quotation  is in my view not justified. Also, I dislike the neoliberist ravings, please be more careful in your wording. -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Economist may be a respectable journal (whatever that means) but, again, the content of their coverage does not actually link the Bornean Clouded Leopard with species inflation, it simply mentions both in the same article, as innuendo. We are under no obligation here to represent their statement if they aren't even drawing upon a primary source that explicitly makes the connection, and if they (as non-biologists) can't be expected to be a reliable primary source for that kind of assertion. As to Complainer's comment, editors here are obliged to act civilly toward one another, but Compainer did not say "you are a raving neoliberal". The statement may not have furthered this discussion, but it is a general opinion that editor may express, and not an attack against other Wikipedia editors. I don't presume to lecture you on policy, Chris, you've been here longer than I, and I admit that I may be wrong about this. It's just my opinion that we needn't be so careful to avoid offending people who aren't even here (the editors of The Economist). — coelacan — 20:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be at least a controversy section in the "The Economist" article.--92.118.191.48 (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientists? 

message: Can we get a photo here? Drawings just don't cut it for me I'm afraid... --Candy-Panda 13:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Find one that doesn't have copyright issues. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I attempted to contact WWF to ask if they could point me to any of the photographers to contact directly about usage questions, but I didn't receive a response.  This does unfortunately seem like somewhat of a dead-end.  --Dajagr 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same idea and I have now emailed one of the WWF-affiliated photographers, Alain Compost. He could be out in the jungle for all I know so it may be quite a while before I get any response. — coelacan — 04:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've done some work on this too, including contacting the WWF — they must be impressed they've now received contacts from three separate Wikipedians :)  Anyway, I also contacted the Clouded Leopard Project, and they very generously said they would be willing to help if they acquired an image (which might happen sometime in April).  They also said there are no Bornean Clouded Leopards in zoos outside of Indonesia, which probably explains our difficulty.--Pharos 23:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good news then! I guess we wait now. — coelacan — 04:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Leo1pard (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page views