Talk:Felidae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cats Portal This article is supported by 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Contents 1 Question 2 evolution 3 answer to "evolution" 4 Tiger Image Caption 5 Vandalism 6 Feline-Hominid genetic similarity 7 Edited the picture in taxobox 8 Science article 9 Updating Carnivora, starting with Feliformia 10 41 species vs. 36 species 11 characteristics 12 Merger of Genera 13 Requested move 13.1 Survey 13.2 Discussion 13.3 Renewing the proposal, together with the alternative 14 Felines? 15 Lokontailurus?

[edit] Question

From the article introduction:

The first felids emerged during the early Eocene, about 40 million years ago, and the family reached its greatest diversity during the Oligocene.

Is this correct? According to my sources the first cats emerged in the Oligocene, and the greatest diversity was reached late in the Pliocene. We appear to disagree again, Tannin ;-) So, what is right? -- Cordyph 20:32 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Both of us, I think. :) A quick double check on Google seems to confirm the Eocene, Cordyph, with various links, but I am not so sure about the period of greatest diversity. Walker's Mammals of the World (1993) says: The geological range of the Felidae is late Eocene to Recent in North America and Eurasia, early Eocene to Recent in Africa, and late Pliocene to Recent in South America.

My phrasing was a little loose: my source was really talking about extinctions after the Oligocene and was a bit vague, so I suggest that you change the diversity statement. Best -- Tannin

Yes, you are right. Actually there were cats in the Eocene, Eofelis and Aelurogale. So the article about Proailurus claiming this genus to be the oldest known feline appears to be wrong. -- Cordyph 09:25 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

One more question: what does "fossile" mean? I thought that was a typo, intended to be "fossil". Tannin

Apologies Tannin, I am not a native English speaker, and I did not know, that "fossil" is the correct spelling. I have missed, that you had corrected the error before. - Cordyph 09:40 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Query: what's the justification for splitting Felidae into so many genera? Most texts that I know only accept four genera: Felis, Neofelis, Panthera and Acinonyx, with all the other genera listed here as synonyms of Felis, except for Uncia, included in Panthera. - MPF 23:56, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Aelurogale and Eofelis seems to be Nimravids, not Felids. Ater The Big cats and their fossil relatives, Proailurus was the first genus of true cats.--Altaileopard 11:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] evolution

For a long time it was not clear how the current feline species were related to each other. Recent molecular evidence have shown how the cats are probably related. According to the findings, all modern cats can be devided into three 'stocks': the first containing the genera Oncifelis, Oreailurus, Leopardus en Herpailurus. The second containing the genera Felis, Otocolobus Profelis and Prionailurus. We find all larger cats in the third stock, containing the big-cat genera Panthera, Uncia and Neofelis, and also Lynx, Caracal, Puma and Catopuma. Even genera with small species are part of this group: Pardofelis, but also Leptailurus.

The cheetah's are placed in a seperate sub-family, the Acinonychinae. But they are much closer related to the other cats then previously thought. They probably descended from Lynx-like ancestors.

And why did you place the pantherine cats in a seperate sub-family? I thought that the cats were originaly divided into the subfamilies Acinonychinae and Felinae, and that the many cat genera were divided into the Felini and Pantherini supergenera.

How do you think about this? Maybe you can explain more about the evolution of cats with this information? English is not my own language, so I am reluctant to edit pages directly.

[edit] answer to "evolution"

You should just edit the pages. English is not my native language either, but I am editing anyway. I know that my edits contain many spelling and grammar flaws, but they can be corrected by anyone who's language is English. At least that's what I presume.

The 'stocks' you are talking about is just one of many results from molecular and DNA analysis. More recent, and more advanced, studies show a different picture. I've added that to the article as 'Alternative classification'. They include Lynx in the Panthera clade, but show that Caracal is not a Lynx, and thus not a Pantherine - Catopuma is neither. Catopuma is allied with Herpailurus, which is a very close relative to Puma. Leopardus and other South-American felids form a sister group to all other cats. There is a study, however, that excludes Lynx and Pardofelis all together from Pantherini and ally the Leopardini with the Pantherines. This is disputed.

[edit] Tiger Image Caption

The original text stated, "the largest and most powerful of the cats", this is incorrect. The liger is larger than the tiger, and thus the largest living cat. I have changed the caption to reflect this.

Yes you are correct,

Female Ligers are fertile and have produced young that have grown to full maturaty

Not naturally occuring, removed. BNS

[edit] Vandalism

You have no idea how hard it was to resist changing the opening line from

Lions, tigers, cats and other felines are members of the family Felidae.

to

Lions, tigers, and bears are members of the family Felidae (oh my!).

What stopped me was that this would be vandalism, but still, I had to get it out of my system somewhere, so here I am. --Cyde Weys 16:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Your comment is now preserved for posterity at BJAODN. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feline-Hominid genetic similarity

I tagged this article {{contradict-other}} because of the section on the degree of genetic similarity between humans and felines. This information contradicts the information listed in the Mammal article, as well as the information listed in any of the mammal classification systems. Even if this information was in the National Geographic issue listed as a reference, we have come quite some ways in evaluting genetic similarities/differences since 1997. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the genetic similarity thing contadicts both common sense and about everything we know about evolution. Such a revolutionary claim should have a little better reference than NG.

This information is contained in one of the molecular biology essays a book called Carnivore Behavior, Ecology and Evolution. Stretches of DNA are similar in Old World primates and felids. Hypothetically retroviruses could "jump" from species to species across family tree lines and insert new DNA into the host genome. I don't have the book with me, but I'd advise checking the source. 153.2.247.33 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

i read the same NG article, and it was to some great degree informed by dr. o'brien's cancer institute research. as best as i can translate my own understanding of it, the similarity it refers to was a structural one rather than a gene-for-gene likeness (as with our own chromosomal make-up and those of our nearest living relatives in the Hominidae), e.g., the actual physical location of the various homologous genes of both ape and felid have been highly conserved from our nearest shared ancestor. (as soon as i find a cited statement that this is in fact the case, i will most certainly add it to the entry.) - Metanoid (talk, email) 01:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edited the picture in taxobox

I edited the image and name of the tiger. It now correctly displays the largest of the Felidae family, the Amur (or Siberian) Tiger.

[edit] Science article

They estimated that 60 percent of the modern species of cats developed within the last million years.[1]

I was unable to read the full article, but the National Geogrpahic article does not mention this fact. The last 11 million years perhaps, but not 1 million. Does someone have the original article to verify this?

[edit] Updating Carnivora, starting with Feliformia

I will be updating the Carnivora taxa articles shortly, to match the listing in MSW3. I have previously updated many of the other mammalian orders in this way. However, I see there is plenty of disagreement in the taxonomy. I will try to use a gentle touch in editing the articles. However I thought it prudent to post here my intentions. You can also see the MSW3 taxonomy at User:UtherSRG/Carnivora. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 41 species vs. 36 species

IUCN lists 36 species under felidae family, but this page lists 41. In IUCN, some of the species which are listed here are actually shown to be subspecies of some other species. So, what should be done in this regard and moreover the reference for the number (41 species) has not been provided? DSachan 00:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is listed in the article in both the taxobox and the species listing. The reference is Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition, November 2005. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are only 40 cat species, because Felis silvestris includes the domestic cat. The rest of the difference (40 vs. 36 species) is due to the split of the Pampas cat into 3 species (L. braccatus, L. colocolo und L. pajeros) and the Lynx in 3 distinct species (Lynx canadensis, Lynx lynx, Lynx pardinus).--Altaileopard 15:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

41. Felis catus is valid according to ICZN. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, how do you know this. For example the following Paper (Ettore Randi: Genetic Identification of Wild and Domestic Cats (Felis silvestris) and Their Hybrids Using Bayesian Clustering Methods 2001) says:

"Randi and Ragni (1991) recommended that Felis silvestris Schreber, 1777, be regarded as a single polytypic species with three wild subspecies, the African (Felis silvestris libyca), European (Felis silvestris silvestris), and Asian (Felis silvestris ornata) wildcats, and a domesticated form (Felis silvestris catus) originating from north African and Near Eastern African wildcat populations (Wozencraft 1993 ; Clutton-Brock 1999 ). "

Newer papers handle it in the same way and when I remember right in walkers mammals of the world it is also called Felis silvestris catus. Greetings--Altaileopard 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Walkers is old. MSW3 is current. It lists Felis catus as a full species separate from F. silvestris, and indicates that if catus were included in silvestris, then (if I'm reading it all correctly) because silvestris is more closely related to margarita and because catus is sister group to lybica, then silvestris would become invalid. (The comments are spread throughout Felis, Felis catus and Felis silvestris, but regardless, F. catus is listed separately, and we should follow MSW3 unless and until something is published afterward showing the majority opinion is something else.) - UtherSRG (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will look for a paper which definitely says, that the domesticated cat is included in Felis silvestris. In the meantime we follow MSW. But i don´t understand what you wnat to say with margarita, and lybica... silvestris would not be invalid, because lybica is definitely just subspecies. --Altaileopard 09:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

According to ITIS [1], Felis catus is the correct genus and species. Ajwenger (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

According to ICZN Opinion 2027 the domesric cat is called Felis silverstris.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)--Altaileopard (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ups: silvestris!--Altaileopard (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, it doesn't. See the discussion on talk:cat. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] characteristics

i'm sending out a wish to the gods of wikipedia: shouldn't this article have a section on the characteristics of this family? what makes an animal a cat? best, reethers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reethers (talk • contribs).

So go ahead and research the info you are looking for, and write it into the article. There's no gods here. We're all just editors, me and you alike. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go. I've listed my source in the general references, but people will probably want to add more specific in-line refs to improve the article. Anaxial 21:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Genera

I propose a merger of the genera Caracal, Leptailurus and Profelis into one genus Caracal. The same can be done with the genera Pardofelis and Profelis into one genus Pardofelis. This will be according to the latest genetic assessment, performed by Johnson et al: "The Late Miocene radiation of Modern Felidae: A genetic assessment", which is well supported. DaMatriX 19:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gimme a week or so to contact the author of the appropriate section of MSW3 and see what they have to say. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, thank you! You can also ask them about the inclusion of Uncia in Panthera (?) DaMatriX 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Too bad we don't control the official taxonomy...Eriorguez 15:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be changed back to how it was. According to the official taxonomy listed in ITIS (http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=552456), serval is still in the genus Leptailurus. Changing it like you did DaMatriX is just confusing and inaccurate because you don't even provide references to anything that says that the taxonomy was changed. Stormish 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did provide a reference: "The Late Miocene radiation of Modern Felidae: A genetic assessment" [[2]] DaMatriX 15:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Renewing the proposal, together with the alternative

Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats#Move proposal for name uniformity. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felines?

hope this doesn't seem extraordinarily silly, but bear with me. given that the two extant subfamilies of the Felidae would technically be referred to as "pantherines" (Pantherinae) and "felines" (Felinae), should the caption of the taxobox really be labeled "Felines" (as it is currently)? - Metanoid (talk, email) 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the unfortunate thing that is the English language. "Felines" to the general population means what "felids" means to scientists, who understand "felines" to mean it as you said. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

exactly! hehe. - Metanoid (talk, email) 01:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC) and now that i think for a moment, the same holds for the Canidae, hmm. - Metanoid (talk, email) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

and now i see the discussion above on the very same topic. -Metanoid (talk, email) 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

weird that "Felidae is the biological family of the cats; a member of this family is called a felid", but the taxobox is labeled "Felines", as if members of the family were not, in fact, to be called "felids". yep, veeeerrry interesting, that. almost -- well -- contradictory? hmmm. - Metanoid (talk, email) 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lokontailurus?

I can find no reference to the genus lokontailurus outside of this article, the Machairodontinae article and a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors around the web. Does anyone have any idea where it came from? Swiftwindcat (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Go back and look at Machairodontinae. The inclusion of the genus is referenced there. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the info I added to the article about this genus is from Alan Turner & Mauricio Anton: Evolving Eden. An Illustrated Guide to the Evolution of the African Large-Mammal Fauna. Columbia University Press, New York, 2004. ISBN 0-231-11944-5--Altaileopard (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)