Talk:Marsupial Lion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Preferred photos show the complete animal, head to tail. Additional photos should add information, such as a face-only shot or distinct coat color or texture variants. Please do not include restricted copyright or "fair use" images.

--Francisco Valverde 23:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] How many species?

If this species was evolving for 24 million years than how many species were there? Surely there cant be just 1 species all that time? Enlil Ninlil 02:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The article states that they became extinct "about 50,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age".... I thought the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago? Can someone please clarify? Thanks :) ntennis 02:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you are right, and ice age says so as well, so I am taking it out. Argent Cerulean 04:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos and Pics

I've got a couple of good pictures lined up, but I'm not sure on the lagalities of using the photos. Is there anyway of using them if they're copyrighted? T.carnifex (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name Meaning

Does Iblardi have a reference for the meaning of Thylacoleos name, other than a latin dictionary? I know, it being a dictionary gives correct (to the authors knowledge, anyway) grammar and root-words, but the generally accepted version should appear on the page.

http://www.parks.sa.gov.au/publish/groups/public/@parks/@uppersoutheast/documents/all/005605.pdf has "comes from thylacis meaning pouched, leo meaning lion and carnifex, to butcher." —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.carnifex (talk • contribs) 09:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thylacoleo is simply a regular Latinized combination of Greek thylakos (bag, pouch) and Greek/Latin leo(n): thylaco-leo. Thylakis does exist, but this is a diminutive of thylakos. I haven't found a form thylakis (or thylacis, for that matter) meaning 'pouched' in Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon. Carnifex is a common noun (not a verb, as the source makes it appear) which basically would mean "meat-maker" (caro, gen. carnis + facere) but is normally used to indicate someone who makes slaughtering his business, i.e. a henchman, a tormentor, a murderer. The dictionaries quoted are authoritative. Also note that the form carnae, which was mentioned in the original explanation, is non-existent. Iblardi (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This is simply your interpretation of latin grammar and spelling, which may well be sound. Do you have a source which quotes this as the roots of the name as Owen described?T.carnifex (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, no. We are simply dealing with words which can be looked up in dictionaries. The first is a new, but perspicuous compound (compare also: [1]), and the second is an existing word. I think there is no need to assume that Owen re-invented his word roots, and the mentioning of "carnae" made me edit without hesitation. But if you can quote Owen giving a word-for-word translation of his name (rather than a paraphrasis), this would of course be excellent. Iblardi (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Carnae means meat in spanish. Cazique (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Really, not carne? But while this could explain the error, it is irrelevant for the scientific name. This may be the source, as it contains the same mistaken forms thylacis and carnae. Iblardi (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Nah actually, yeh I think it is spelled carne not carnae. Maybe it means meat or "flesh" in another language then. And as spanish is a romance language derived from latin, it could very well be latin. Cazique (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Also I followed the link you provided, but why do you say the mistaken forms? I mean I don't speak Latin or know the language, but how do you know these are not latin words? Cazique (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do know Latin. The Spanish word derives from the 3rd declension word caro, which has an accusative carnem and bears the same meaning, 'flesh' or 'meat'. The form "carnae" is an obvious corruption and has nothing to do with the scientific name Thylacoleo carnifex. The person speaking in the link is a scientist, but that doesn't mean he can't be mistaken with respect to Latin/Greek etymologies. (In this case, it may be just a transcription error for carne, which would be the ablative of caro.) It's just one of those inaccuracies that apparently get to lead a life of their own on the internet. Carnifex is an existing and well-established word. There really isn't much room for doubt. Iblardi (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not arguing with you. Cazique (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've looked dictionary you linked, listened to your reasoning, and done other searches, and it would appear you are correct. Hopefully you can understand why I was confused and questioned it, with there being two sources agreeing on the use of thylacis for pouch (the parks s.a. page, and the transcript). T.carnifex (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly understand your skepsis, given the contradicting internet sources. I am glad that you have convinced yourself after doing some research. Iblardi (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be nice if the whole web was a wiki, and then we could go fix those mistakes? Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, considering the ever-increasing popularity of Wikipedia, this is already a good place to start. Iblardi (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was quite interesting. Pretty much any source I found that went into the etymology of Thylacoleo (ignoring carnifex) quotes "thylacis for pouch." It was only when I came across pages for the Thylacine that all sources staded "thylakos for pouch." Damn confusing. I thought that the Naracoorte Caves site would be a reliable source regarding Thylacoleo carnifex, knowing the people that work there. I figured, though, that more places used thylakos, and dictionaries didn't turn up "thylacis," I had to agree that "thylakos" was pouch. I also thought this would be the best way of working it out, discussing it in the appropriate forum, rather than being a knob and engaging in a "revert war." ;) T.carnifex (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving to Pleistocene marsupial lion

As we describe here (in wikipedia) many marsupial lion species, like Wakaleo oldfieldi and others, we should be more specific in the name of T. carnifex. So we should move the article Marsupial Lion (T. carnifex) to Pleistocene marsupial lion, as it would be more specific and less confusing.--Altaileopard (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

First, to follow WP:MaM, that would be Pleistocene Marsupial Lion. Second, I don't see a preponderance of evidence suggesting that as the common name, as per what T.carnifex (talk · contribs) has said on other talks. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The only reason I could see moving it to Pleistocene Marsupial Lion would be to remove the ambiguity with the marsupial lion vs. Marsupial Lion situation, although then you could still have the argument over whether to redirect the capitalized version to Pleistocene Marsupial Lion or to Thylacoleonidae like the lowercase version. I'm sure that Marsupial Lion without the qualifying Pleistocene is the more common name but this reputable source at least ([2]) shows that the name Pleistocene Marsupial Lion is used. Since there is only one page named Marsupial Lion, as the uncapitalized version is simply a redirect, I don't see the big need to add the qualifier on to the article title, but I'm pretty neutral about it. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually I do not understand, why you do not see a big thing to add the qualifier on to the article title. There is a very long discussion about an "l" and an "L" and the redirects of marsupial lion, Marsupial Lion and Marsupial lion at Talk:Thylacoleonidae. I think the artificial distinguisihing between Marsupial lion and Marsupial Lion is very confusing for common users and there are many good sources for the name Pleistocene marsupial lion (http://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=de&lr=&q=pleistocene+marsupial+lion&btnG=Suche&lr=) for example:
  • S. Wroe, T. J. Myers, R. T. Wells and A. Gillespie: Estimating the weight of the Pleistocene marsupial lion, Thylacoleo carnifex (Thylacoleonidae:Marsupialia): implications for the ecomorphology of a marsupial super-predator and hypotheses of impoverishment of Australian marsupial carnivore faunas. online)
  • Stephen Wroe et al.:An alternative method for predicting body mass: the case of the Pleistocene marsupial lion. online
It could be, that in unscientific literature the name Marsupial Lion is more common, but Pleistocene Marsupial Lion is used more often in scientific literature and more precise. I think we should use the more specific and scientific name.
Even if you search for Marsupial lion in Google scholar, you find in most cases Pleistocene marsupial lion if T. carnifex is in focus.
@UtherSRG: Sorry, but can you please shortly sum up, what User:T.carnifex has said on other talks. PS: I do not care about the thing with Pleistocene Marsupial Lion or Pleistocene marsupial lion. We could do that as you like.--Altaileopard (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No, but I'll redirect him here. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hrm.... 29 hits for "Pleistocene marsupial lion" and 20 hits for "marsupial lion" -pleistocene +carnifex, which I'm betting cuts off uses of "marsupial lion" when "Pleistocene" is mentioned but is not attached to the name of the critter. Your argument is not convincing. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
If you count the hits, I think you have to compare it actually like this: "marsupial lion" +pleistocene -carnifex and you get 677 hits!.--Altaileopard (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hardly! For that would count every article that 1. mentions marsupial lions and 2. mentions the pleistocene but 3. does not mention T. carnifex. Many articles can mention marsupial lions and can mention the pleistocene, but may not be mentioning them together. The searches I used explicitlky call for articles using the common name as you suggest (in the first instance) or the common name that I suggest, requiring they include mention of T. carnifex, but removing articles mentioning the pleistocene altogether. Perhaps I should have done "carnifex -"pleistocene marsupial lion""... - UtherSRG (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In fact, an even better search is thylacoleo carnifex -"pleistocene marsupial lion" which gives 140 hits (vs 162 for just 'thylaceo carnifex'), or "marsupial lion" +carnifex -"pleistocene marsupial lion" which gives 62 hits (vs 84 for just '"marsupial lion" +carnifex'). So 22 hits for your naming, vs 62 or 140 for articles about marsupial lions that mention carnifex, but don't use your naming. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That is a funny game! I think the best way to search would be:
But I think that will not solve the problem. --Altaileopard (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In previous conversations I mentioned that people are still going to search Marsupial Lion looking for T. carnifex, as this is the name most frequently used in mainstream media, such as the news, on television, or in popular science magazines. Although the Thylacoleonidae discussions appear to be nearing resolution, there's still going to be people asking "Why does Marsupial Lion redirect me to Thylacoleonidae?" Even if Marsupial Lion will be redirected to "Pleistocene marsupial lion," there will potentially be issues regarding capitalisation, etc. As Rlendog also pointed out in Thylacoleonidae discussions, there's no truly objective measure of what is the common name. Adding the "Pleistocene" qualifier would be a correct change, but unnecessary, and no more correct than the usage of "Marsupial Lion" without the qualifier. T.carnifex (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if we should orientate better on television ect. or on proper publications..... The linkeage of Marsupial Lion and Marsupial lion to different articles is illogical for me, so i think that change would not be unnecessary.--Altaileopard (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if it makes sense to rename this article under the Latin name "Thylacoleo carnifex", have "Marsupial Lion", "Pleistocene Marsupial Lion" and "Pleistocene marsupial lion" redirect there (here) and have "marsupial lion" redirect to "Thylacoleonidae". T carnifex is the one name I think we can all agree is valid for this species. And the common names would then do the best we can to direct to the appropriate places, but we could still have the hatnotes so people can click through to where they really want to go if they searched differently (i.e., if they use marsupial lion for T. carnifex or Marsupial Lion for Thylacoleonidae).Rlendog (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That would also solve the problem. Pleistocene marsupial lion and Tylacoleo carnifex are both specific for this animal, but for a common user I think the former would be easier to understand.--Altaileopard (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(Deindent) While I can fully understand the desire to simplify navigation for the lay reader, it would be incorrect to move this article to "Pleistocene Marsupial Lion" since that is not the scientifically accepted common name. The literature quoted above (Wroe, et al) uses lower case when it specifies the "Pleistocene marsupial lion" to indicate a member of Thylacoleonidae (the marsupial lions) that existed in the Pleistocene, rather than an animal called THE Pleistocene Marsupial Lion (previous arguments re the interpretation of capitalisation notwithstanding). It is used colloquially to identify T. carnifex in the same manner as "Eocene horse" might be used to mean Hyracotherium. However, given the confusion and vitriol thus far generated, I am not opposed to a move to "Thylacoleo carnifex" as suggested by Rlendog. Secret Squïrrel, approx 04:10, 9 June 2008 (Earth Standard Time)

"that is not the scientifically accepted common name". Sorry, but scientifically accepted common names do actually not exist.--Altaileopard (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh, why did I decide to live my real life! When I am not here to point out uneducated peoples biasing opinion's, confusion is forced upon other users. Marsupial Lion is fine the way it is. End of story. Cazique (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I do not understand you, but I have to accept this. I can only wonder, why you link someone, who is searching for Marsupial lion to Thylacoleonidae just to tell him, that he has to go to Marsupial Lion????.......--Altaileopard (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)