Talk:Leopardus

message: Do the two species of tigrina belong here?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/25086721
Kortoso (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  L tigrinus 

message: Can they hybridize with any other cats, for example the house cat? 109.159.127.187 (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In the wild, they don't. And I sincerely hope that you won't attempt to catch one for the purpose of breeding with house cat!!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hybridization 

message: "The genus is considered the oldest branch of the part of the cat family to cross into the Americas, followed by the genera Lynx and Puma. (The jaguar is the other extant cat native to the Americas.)" What does that mean? Is that meant to be, "The genus descends from the first cats to cross into the Americas. The general Lynx and Puma descend from later immigrants."?
IAmNitpicking (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I agree that it was very unclear, however, and have rephrased the statement with an appropriate reference. Does it make sense now? Anaxial (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylogeny ... what? 

message: Perhaps it is now time to discuss the order in which to present the species in the table and the sorting options. This long-going edit war should stop. The current table uses the order that has long being used in the article, by the authority date. This status quo should be maintained until there is consensus for a change. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Jts1882. I fully agree !! – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

text: When in Dec 2017, User:Cs california converted the earlier list into a table, s/he kept the chronological sequence of scientific descriptions that was already in place long before : i.e. the earliest one followed by later ones. Only when a novice user changed this long accepted chronological sequence by the authority date, I made this table SORTABLE. This parameter provides readers with *4 more ways* to resort the table entries alphabetically. But if the table entries are already pre-sorted alphabetically, it is not possible for a reader to see the chronological sequence of descriptions at first glance; this benefit is lost. I hope, this explanation is simple enough to understand for novice users. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's sortable by common name. Perhaps the scientific name should be moved back to a separate column (as it once was) to allow sorting. The scientific name cells could also show subspecies as there will be space taken by images in the other columns. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  With another column, the question of pre-sorting by *authority date* will not be addressed. You are aware of that, aren't you? The parameter 'sortable' allows sorting ONLY alphabetically. – BhagyaMani (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

text:  For adding subspecies, I would much prefer to add a column for only images and place subspecies in the same column as common cum scientific names. – BhagyaMani (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current table allows sorting by common name which has three states: alphabetic, reverse alphabetic and initial (which is by authority date). Sorting by latin name is not possible. My suggestion leaves the current sort options on the first column (including default to sort by authority state) and allows sorting the scientific name. If the common and scientific names are kept together, you can only sort one of them; they need to be split to allow both to be sorted. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, I understand this. But I was under the impression that this novice editor does not understand or not care for 'authority date', whereby you and I mean the year of first description of the taxon. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

text: We noticed. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of listing in species table 

message: With the edits and counter-edits taking place on this page, I thought maybe I could help take the discussion to the talk page. The ocelot does indeed range into North America. It may be worth pointing out that Mexico is, in fact, in North America (and the ocelot ranges north of Mexico, even if the maps in this article don't make that clear). IAmNitpicking (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic range