Talk:Saber-toothed predator

message: As possible preparation for a split, I thought it might be interesting to discuss which mammals should be included. Many mammals have large canines for various reasons (hippos, babboons, musk deer, taeniodonts), but this is not enough. Is carnivory and long canines sufficient, or is it associated with other morphological features of the skull (sagital crest, or the build in general (stocky, short-limbed)?
While looking at this I have reservations about inclusion of the Deltatheroida. The reference given for Lotheridium doesn't mention a saber-tooth adaptation. It describes a long canine that is transversely compressed, but is this sufficient for the conclusion that it is an early saber-tooted adaptation.
On the other hand, the Arctocyonidae might have a better case.  The website paleocene-mammals.de states the following:
:: "It is noteworthy that some arctocyonids started to develop a saber-tooth dentition, the type of teeth that is most widely known from saber-toothed cats but occurs independently in other mammals like the marsupial saber-tooth Thylacosmilus. Among arctocyonids this trend can first be seen in Mentoclaenodon from the middle Paleocene fissure fillings of Walbeck, Germany. With an estimated skull length of about 15 cm this rare form is the largest mammal of the Walbeck fauna. Mentoclaenodon has particularly large upper canines that are crenulated at the back, and it shows a beginning expansion of the chin region as this is often associated with saber-teeth. In Anacodon, the late Paleocene to early Eocene terminal form of the large North American arctocyonids, the chin is developed into a large flange to protect the saber-like upper canines. These arctocyonids may have been the first carnivore-like mammals ever to evolve this type of dentition."
Unfortunately it doesn't give specific references, just general references at the end. I'll try and follow up and check the general references and some other sources. This sort of more general and arguably speculative expansion of sabre-toothed predators is much more suitable in a dedicated article than in this one. Jts1882 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated elsewhere, this is only used to refer to predators, and it also includes other skull and skeleton features. According to Antón 2013, the relevant groups are: Gorgonopsia, Thylacosmilidae, Machaeroidinae, Nimravidae, Barbourofelidae, and Machairodontinae. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. So why does the article include Deltatheroida/Lotheridium? Jts1882 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea, the cited article doesn't seem to mention saber-teeth, so it is probably WP:original research by whoever added it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: It's been confirmed that the Deltatheroida were carnivores. And since apparently the criteria for this page is that something is both a carnivore and possesses Saber-teeth-type dentition. As it fits the criteria it's inclusion seems justified, Also if the Arctocyonids were carnivores, then include them as well.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We can only add it if reliable sources call it such. Doesn't matter if we think it applies. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which mammals have the saber-tooth morphology? 

message: So there has been no progress in solving the issue with this article, which is that the title Saber-toothed cat is not inclusive enough to cover what is currently the article's scope, which is all saber-toothed synapsid predators that ever lived. So what to do? Rename the article, or make a new one where info about the niche as a whole can be covered, and the info about non-feliform saber-tooths be removed from here? And in that case, what should the new article be called?  FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Saber-toothed synapsid predator? And a split does sound reasonable. BilCat (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be, though it is a bit wordy. If we want to be even more specific, it could also be therapsid, though with both examples, few readers would understand what we're talking about. But yeah, it is pretty difficult to come up with a concise title that also covers exactly what we want. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Gorgonopsids are not saber toothed cats. When most people are thinking about sabre tooth cats they are not thinking about gorgonopsids. Gorgonopsids are already given appropriate mention in the text, it is not necessary to clarify further. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, only machairodonts are saber-toothed cats. Thylacosmilids, nimravids, "credodonts" etc., are not cats either, and that's already at least half what this article covers. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we want to amend it to "sabertooths"?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably needs something more, because there are various other animals with saber-teeth, such as Tiarajudens, which were not predators, as well as fish with that name, see saber-tooth. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Sabretooth ecomorph? —  Jts1882 | talk  10:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I proposed that once, but seems it was too esoteric. Maybe "saber-tooth predator niche" would be the most understandable. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless there's a common name in the scientific literature that we can use, I say we go for that. Speaking of which, "Sabertooth Cat" is generally used for Smilodon & Machairodontinae. I say we have "Sabertooth Cat" redirect to the latter & add a template for the former. Monsieur X (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but I have a feeling many would be against that, because it's such a popular term (as was shown by earlier discussions about this). But at best, it could only be a redundant disambiguation page otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My head hurts just reading those as they don't make any sense. It should either be the earlier mentioned "Evolution of sabertooth morphology" or "saber-tooth predator niche". If you look up Sabretooth cats anywhere else, it's always Smilodon or related felids. It's just this page that's the problem! Monsieur X (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to compile a list of possible inclusive names, then we can maybe have a vote soon. And then afterwards we can figure out what's the best thing, to just move this article, or make a new one. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I think this one would be the most understandable for layreaders. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Seems to be the most simple and easily understandable version so I think this would be the best option. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I say we go with this one as there are plenty of "Evolution of" articles. With a title like that, it could go more into the details of convergent evolution in sabre-tooth predators. Monsieur X (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How does Evolution of saber-toothed predators sound? If not that, simply Saber-toothed predator sounds good to me. Both titles are fairly approachable to a layperson, aren't wrong, and don't get into unnecessary specifics. If, hypothetically, there were a weird Triassic archosauromorph that had strong functional convergence on machairodontines, it would make as much sense to mention as gorgonopsians. Conversely, there aren't any saber-toothed sauropsid predators we specifically want to exclude, AFAIK. As such, I don't see much benefit to specifying a clade name in the title. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, feel free to add it to the list too. I'm fine with any title, as long as it is more inclusive. FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall I think Saber-toothed predator is our best option. It's short, to the point, understandable to a layperson, and a perfectly adequate encapsulation of what this article is about. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

text: "Sabertooth" (hyphens and UK/US spelling variable) seems to be the closest thing there is to a standard name for this thing. Obviously, that's taken by the disambiguation. MOS says that parenthetical disambiguation is only to be used if there is not a satisfactory natural disambiguation. A skim of Google Scholar finds "sabertooth predator" and "saber-toothed predator" to be used occasionally; none of the other phrases turn up many results on Google Scholar. I'm leaning slightly towards "Sabertooth predator" or "Sabretooth predator" over "Saber-toothed predator" or "Sabre-toothed predator", because I think the unhyphenated version comes across more clearly as a noun phrase with a specific meaning (a predator with dental adaptations implying morphofunctional convergence with machairodontines), rather than simply "a predator that has sabre teeth", and as such is a more encyclopedic concept. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Any preferences regarding "sabertoothed" vs "sabertooth"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

text:  Google scholar returns 32 results for "sabertooth morphology" and variations with hyphen, "ed", and/or UK spellings brings the total to about 100, mostly in the correct context, e.g. evolution of the sabertooth morphology, acquisition of the sabertooth morphology, transitional sabertooth morphology, suite of sabertooth morphology, etc. It clearly referring to the concept, a morphology associated with a functional adaptation, rather than being used as an adjective for a carnivore or predator. So I lean towards Sabertooth morphology or Evolution of sabertooth morphology. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. I'm not sure how I missed that; maybe I misspelled it when I searched it. I suppose it comes down to the question, do we want the article to be about the animals that share this adaptation, or do we want it to be specifically about the anatomical trait itself? "Sabertooth predator" seems more appropriate for the former and "sabertooth morphology" more appropriate for the latter. "Sabertooth predator" strikes me as slightly more layperson-friendly as well. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Are sabertooth predators clearly the primary topic over the Marvel supervillain Sabretooth? I think "Sabertooth" or "Sabretooth" would be the best title for this article, if we could get a consensus that these animals are the primary topic. The "enduring notability and educational value" criterion points clearly to sabertooth predators. "Smilodon" and "Saber-toothed cat" both far exceed "Sabretooth (character)" in page views. However, googling "Sabretooth" turns up results mostly related to Marvel. I'm inclined to think that sabertooth predators are, indeed, the primary topic, but there might be some pushback from people who aren't paleontology enthusiasts.  Ornithopsis (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can use the standard google search to establish encyclopedic relevance comparing a comic character with a scientific concept (the former will usually have more hits, which does not mean it is more relevant). I therefore don't see a problem here. I dislike "sabertooth predator", as that somehow implies that there are sabertooths which are not predators? "Predator" here seems redundant. "Sabertooth morphology" sounds not much better to me, because "morphology" is just about the shape, and our article should include function as well. As you already suggested, I think that simply Sabertooth would be the best choice. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the problem is it's not entirely up to us. I think we should try and get "Sabertooth" as the article title, but if that ends up getting rejected, we'll need to discuss alternatives. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As an alternative, I would personally go for sabertooth (ecomorph). By the way, only the spelling "Sabretooth" turns up the comic thing in Google for me. The spelling "Sabertooth" is all about science. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer Sabertooth predator to Sabertooth (ecomorph). The latter is less clear to a layperson, and it uses parenthetical disambiguation, which Wikipedia policy regards as less preferable than natural disambiguation. And there are sabertooths that aren't predators—that's kind of the entire point of the sabertooth disambiguation page. Anyhow, I would suggest we put up a move request (or whatever the procedure is) to move Saber-toothed cat to Sabertooth, with Sabretooth as a redirect, and move the current Sabretooth page to Sabretooth (disambiguation). Ornithopsis (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it: the comic character seems partly animal, so it is partly predator as well? See also the separate meanings of "predator": wikt:predator. The character is derived from the real thing to start with. And in my opinion, Sabertooth predator is incorrect because that would imply an article about the animals, not the feature (which I think you already pointed out above). The article won't contain much information about the animals that are unrelated to the feature, so that title might be misleading. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several other entries on the disambiguation page that aren't predators. I assume we aren't going to rewrite the article to only be about the teeth, right? The article as it stands is clearly about a category of predatory mammal, and not about a specific anatomical trait per se. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The article would be about the ecomorph, not about a polyphyletic group. At the very least, sabertooth predator would include the sabertooth fish as these are definitely predators, so this title won't work for this reason alone in my opinion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, so we should avoid jargon such as "ecomorph" except where necessary. The term "sabertooth predator" has been used in the scientific literature as a name for the ecomorph in question (e.g.   ). Ornithopsis (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Also, this conversation is purely semantics until we've determined if we can lay claim to the page title "sabertooth" or not. What do other people think of that? Ornithopsis (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sabertooth predator seems to be an ad-hoc combination rather than an actual defined term. We could also choose Sabertooth carnivore (which has just as many – just a handful – hits on Google Scholar) or some similar random combination. But both are not widely used, and even when they have been used in some papers doesn't mean that they are the right terms for our article. But yes, we both wanted to go for "sabertooth" anyways, let's see what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think having some kind of word after "sabertooth" would be good just to make it more understandable for layreaders, but yeah, it's difficult to figure out exactly what. It was pointed out earlier that "sabertoothed carnivore" could be misleading, as it might imply Carnivora, any thoughts on that? Also, we have to keep in mind a lot of non-expert editors will likely join in when the move proposal is made, so making it as "attractive" as possible could avoid the failure of the last request. FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But if it refers to Carnivora, it would be sabertooth carnivorans, right? This is actually another ad hoc term that is in use. The problem remains that such ad hoc terms lack a generally accepted definition. While "sabertooth carnivoran" is unambiguous, I don't see how "sabertooth predator" or "sabertooth carnivore" could exclude the sabertooth fish when such definition is absent; when we do this, I fear it is WP:synth. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to look through Mauricio Antón's Sabertooth book later today to see if he used any term other than just "sabertooths", I think it's one of the few popular books that cover the group as a whole. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think a secondary source is what we need here. Language allows to form compound words ad hoc (extreme example: "giant marsupial predatory sabertooth"), but that does not make them part of the scientific terminology that should be defined in a dictionary or encyclopedia. If Antón writes something that defines the term, like "sabertooth predators are an ecomorph …", or if he indicates that he adopts the term from another source, e.g. "which have been called sabertooth predators", that would be a very solid argument in my opinion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks. This makes it clear enough that "sabertooth predator" is more than an ad hoc term, and it is clearly defined in this secondary source. This should be cited as evidence in the move proposal. I don't have any more objections. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I'll wait for a week, so more editors can have a look. But yeah, kind of stupid I didn't just look at the book before... FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Technically, perhaps, but now we at least have one authority that uses the term specifically for the therapsid predators. FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split or rename again 

message: A new paper by Paul Barrett puts the cat among the pigeons.  According to this study the barbourofelids are nimravids after all. It does suggest that they were a separate lineage developing the sabretooth morphology, but from a lineage of conical-toothed nimravines. There is another paper looking at their place in the broader Carnivoraverse (Barrett et al, 2020). I haven't access to the full paper yet, but the phylogenetic analyses is available in the supplementary materials. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Theory