Talk:Felinae

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cats Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.CatsWikipedia:WikiProject CatsTemplate:WikiProject CatsCats articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Mammals Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should we put any distinction on this list between currently living and extinct species? I understand the desire to list all species by genera, but strictly alphabetical organization seems arbitrary for the average user.--209.6.138.103 (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's only six, out of over 30, and they're clearly distinguished from the living ones, so it doesn't seem a great issue to me. On the other hand, there are a lot of extinct species of Felinae that aren't on the list (the two species of Miracinonyx, for example) - if all of those were added to the list as it stands, I can see that would reduce readability, and that there would then be a good case for listing them separately. Anaxial (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Panthers be on this list?--67.66.69.165 (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, there is no such thing as a "panther"; it's a nonspecific term for certain types of leopard, cougar and jaguar (like the Florida panther, which is a kind of cougar). Then there's also the genus Panthera. And the cougar is already on the list. Seduisant (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK?---Bliizard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The cougar (Puma concolor), also commonly known as the mountain lion, puma, panther, or catamount, is a large felid of the subfamily Felinae native to the Americas208.114.41.213 (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Felis catus is a subspecies of Felis silvestris, its full name that reflects its place in classification is Felis silvestris catus. There are new genetic research based classifications. Why don't you want to check it?--Zara-arush (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i removed the two genra Dinofelis and Metailurus because they do not belong in Felinae, but Machairodontinae. --Coluberssymbol (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The genus Acinonyx is listed both here and in pantherinae. Which is it? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It goes here. Anaxial (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an inconsistency in the tribe names used in various articles. The taxobox in this article lists Acinonychini and Felini as tribes, but the taxobox in the felini article has a subtribe Pumina (essentially the same as Acinonychini). Both include lynxes. Given the currently accepted relationship between felid lineages, the tribe Felini should only include the felis and leaopard cat lineages or include all four (with lynxes and pumas) as in the Felini article taxobox. The current taxobox for this article with lynxes and not pumas/cheetahs is not a natural taxon. As a more general point, what is the source for these tribe names? Jts1882 (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find a definitive answer to this and I'm not sure there is one. The authors of the molecular studies don't tend to assign taxonomic names to clades and there doesn't seem to have been a major taxonomic revision since Jonhson et al (2006) defined the eight extant cat lineages. The validity of this division seems to have survived the test of time and is unchanged for a decade now.

Felini seems to have been described originally to describe the non-pantherine conical toothed cats. The subfamily Felinae was used to describe all conical toothed cats, to distinguish them from the sabre-toothed cats of the subfamily Machairodontinae. This usage is still used in studies involving fossils and is used in some Wikipedia articles. Felini is equivalent to Felinae sensu stricto. The Felidae section in Mammals of Africa uses Pantherini and Felini as tribes within Felinae (for all conical toothed cats).

If Felini and/or Felina are going to be redefined they could be applied to any of the six branch points separating the non-pantherine lineages. Unless there is a published taxonomic review we can cite, the choice will be POV.

On the use of Pumina as the subtribe name, I think this is incorrect. While Johnson et al (2006) called it the Puma lineage, the genus Acinonyx seems to have precedence over Puma, making Pumina a junior synonym of Acinonychina.

As it stands I think the use of tribe and subtribe names in the cat articles is largely POV. A reference to a taxonomic revision of Felidae could resolve this, though. Jts1882 (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tribe and subtribe names from the taxobox. I've been unable to find any source to justify including these names. While logical in many cases, this is original research and/or POV. The use of Felini, in particular, conflicts with the way the tribe Felini is used in the literature, which is as a synonym for Felinae sensu stricto, when Felinae sensu lato is used to refer to all conical-toothed cats, including the pantherine cats. This latter point is now documented in the article, with appropriate citations. Jts1882 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Explaner: The above comments explain the reason for my revert of your recent change. To my knowledge, Acinonychini has never been descibed as inclusive of pumas. @BhagyaMani and PresN: In general I've notes a number of unsourced tribes have been inserted into the Felidae articles from time to time. I know there was a proposal to assign tribes to the lineages (~2009?) but as this hasn't be published a decade later it can't be used as a source on Wikipedia. If there is a new taxonomic review with tribes asssigned, I am not aware of it. Any comments?   Jts1882 | talk  07:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I based the groupings/structure of list of felids primarily on the 2017 IUCN taxo review ([1]), which doesn't even use the word "tribe", much less grant them names, despite extensively discussing theories/proposals that it then rejects. I also didn't see anything else authoritative using tribe names anywhere. I'm certainly not an expert, but as far as I can tell there's no support for named tribes in Felidae/Felinae at this time. --PresN 08:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only tribes of Felinae that I have seen described are Felini, Pantherini and Acinonychini. These are equivalent to the traditional subfamilies when using Felinae sensu lato for all conical-toothed cats. As defined Acinonychini only includes cheetahs. This makes the Acinonychini article problematic.   Jts1882 | talk  10:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting these recent unref'ed changes, Jts1882! I know this proposal too, but since it has never been published in any journal, I fully agree to not use it as a source for dubious tribe names. Li et al. (2016) in their article on cat phylogeny don't even use the word tribe. Looks to me like the concept of tribe has either been given up, or is used among palaeobiologists for extinct fossil species (?) -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, none of the cat phylogeny people seem too interested by taxonomy above genus. With that one exception and he didn't pursue it, despite being part of the IUCN Specialist Cat Group and an author on the revised taxonomy.   Jts1882 | talk  10:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding the opening summary: "… small cats having a bony hyoid, because of which they are able to purr but not roar.[2]":

A rewrite of this area seems to be in order. Please (re-)read the first paragraph on page 7 of the noted reference '2' in its entirety. It states that using elastic- versus bony-hyoid, for differentiation, was used through most of the 20th century; but that that is no longer considered valid. After a diversion about cheetahs, the source text goes on to state "recent studies of hyoid structure and vocal abilities of cats have found that this simple correlation does not hold", and "the fundamental difference between the mostly roaring non-purring cats and the rest [is now attributed to] the structure of the larynx".

Therefore, I suggest a fix to the opening summary, such as one of the following:

1) Perhaps the opening summary should simply be truncated, after "hyoid"?

2) Perhaps the opening summary should become more lengthy: "… small cats having a bony hyoid, and lacking the elasticated vocal folds within the larynx, typical of big cats, and so are able to purr but not roar.[2]"?

174.118.33.82 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding its sorting order, the previous cladogram seems very inconsistent across its lineage groups. If there was a system to the previous sorting order, please point it out. WP:SYNTH doesn't preclude sorting order changes, as long as the the quoted information isn't altered.

To improve the tree's readability I boldly changed the sorting order in a uniform manner by applying the following principles:

• Maintain nesting.
• Place lineage groups in ascending order of their type genus' valid name year.
• Place the lineage groups' vernacular namesake species at the top.
• Place extant taxa at the top of their clade.
• Place remaining genera and species in ascending order of their valid name year.

I also added the relevant sources and threatened status icons to the cladogram. Please discuss. 89.206.112.15 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments:

1. Please fix the reference locations so that the numbered tags show up in appropriate places instead of at the end of the whole cladogram.
2. Please update to use the {{MSW3}} citation template.

Otherwise, good work! - UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

 Fixed it. – 89.206.112.12 (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adrianarias44802 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Adrianarias44802 (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the illustrated table should contain all genera in this family. 2600:1700:A644:6000:E422:3DBA:C3F4:283 (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not missing. It's not in this subfamily. See Pantherinae. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these not considered tribes? 67.231.67.253 (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because they have not been formally described as such. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]