Talk:Snow leopard/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Planet Earth

  • Someone should add about BBC's Planet Earth filming groundbreaking footage of the snow leopard in its natural environment.
  • How are the snow leopards being sucked on? Theres not enough snow leopords to dam suck on!!!!

. There shold also be more pictures of snowleopards in here so that people can get an idea on how they look. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.69.112.254 (talk • contribs) .

  • There are serious mistakes regarding the US military activities and their impact on the snow leopard population. First, the US invaded Afghanistan, no Afghanistan and Pakistan. Second, almost all US bombing took part in the southern half of the country--where there are no snow leopards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.198.223.89 (talk • contribs) .
  • The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is believed to have a much bigger and negative impact in the country's population of snow leopards, since it triggered a total war in the whole country, increased the number of weapons in the rural areas, and had some of its biggest battlefronts in areas like Panjshir and Andarab Valleys, and Faizabad province--all of them, part of the snow leopard range. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.198.223.89 (talk • contribs) .
  • I think it would be a good idea to put in some information on how conservation organisations go about protecting the animal, the main one being trying to make the value of the leopard alive, more valuable to the locals than dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.93.107 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Start class rating

I've palced it here as I didn't want to create the extra page. Anyway, I've rated the article start class because it is too short to be anything else, but too long to be a stub. It has a fair amount of pictures & is fairly well written & accurate. It also has enough references to become even a B class if it had more writing. So, things to do: Basically expand the article & give it a rewrite once you've done that. Spawn Man 03:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Factual Errors

Under 5.1 Distribution the list of countries does not list Mongolia which is one of the main countries where the snow leopard lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.183.49 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Under the Description heading is written: Weighing up to 47 kilograms (310lbs), the snow leopard can be...

This is inaccurate, as 47 kilograms can not in any way be manipulated to equal 310 pounds. Using my own common sense, the 310 pounds figure seems more likely, but I would just like to further clarify which weight is the correct one.

Possible that the author meant 147 kilograms (324 pounds)?

Snow leopard fur doesn't turn white in winter (!). This is not mountain hare! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.142.8 (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The snow leopard is a medium sized cat, no where near as large as, say, tigers. Snow leopards weigh between 27 to 55kg, which is 60 to 120 lbs. You're right, their fur doesn't turn white in the winter. Their fur generally stays a smoky-gray and the rosettes are gray. This pattern allows them to blend with all of their surroundings, whether it be a snowy, rocky, or a mixture of both. --Bentonia School (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Revised Article

I've revised and copy edited the article. I noticed that "snow leopard" was capitalized throughout the article. I've changed that to the convention used in Tiger, Lion, Leopard, and Cheetah: i.e. the first instance is capitalized, but not thereafter. I added a new section on "Habitat, Population, and Home Range" and created a table on habitat areas and estimated populations. I removed some of the excessive footnoting in the lead. One footnote for a topic is usually enough, since readers quickly read through the lead in order to get to the main article (or not). I would request that if you want to add more scientific articles about the Panthera/Uncia debate, please add them to the "See also" section. Also, I've moved the BBC Planet Earth documentary sentence to "External Links". I also took out the reference to September 11—it seemed dubious and unsourced. Finally, I've added a "citation needed" tag to the story about the numbers dropping to 1,000 in the 1960s. This too is very unlikely, given that many habitat areas are almost impossible to reach. If the sentence is not sourced soon, it will be removed. I added a list of protected areas (mostly national parks in Pakistan, India, and Nepal) for the snow leopard. I've also added a number of images and a story about the GPS tagging in Chitral National Park, Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Reverted vandalism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Future Featured Article Consideration

I would like to request that the next time someone decides to nominate the article for Featured Article consideration, they discuss it first on the talk page. Having worked quite a bit on the article myself, I was surprised to find that it was a feature article contender (when it is nowhere near that level of completion). I know it was done in good faith, but it would be a good idea to discuss the issue here first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction

There is a significant apparent contradiction in the article, which must represent a factual error or, at best, an ambiguity. Either way, it needs to be fixed/clarified. The article states that "Despite its name, the snow leopard is not closely related to the leopard, and is thought to be more closely related to the cheetah." However, the article also states that "most recent molecular studies place the species firmly within the genus Panthera", and the leopard is a member of that genus, whereas the cheetah is not. The Felidae article also states that the snow leopard is classified under the same subfamily as leopards (Pantherinae), which is supported by this article's categorization, whereas cheetahs are in a completely different subfamily (Felinae); that's a pretty huge gap between snow leopards and cheetahs, and a pretty small one between snow leopards and leopards. How did this disconnect arise? Are scientists divided on this issue, or is one of the reports out-of-date, or what?

Additionally, if "most recent molecular studies place the species firmly within the genus Panthera", I question why the Uncia genus is still being supported here, since the implication is that it's simply an out-of-date classification that the molecular evidence has overturned. If this is not the case, then the sentence seems to be misleading: it should be revised to say that some recent molecular studies have implied this, or that molecular studies have placed the species within the subfamily Pantherinae, but not necessarily within the genus Panthera (as implied by Felidae). I don't know what the intended statement is, so I don't know how to correct any of these errors; and readers will be similarly confused. -Silence 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. Your point is well taken. I quickly read through the Science article. The evidence does seem to be strong for inclusion in the Panthera lineage, but (as yet) I'm not sure if it is 100%. I will read through that paper in more detail later and some of the other papers as well. In the meantime, I'll let your "contradiction" tag stand (as it will be a spur for me to read the papers!). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the responsiveness. I don't think it's really our job to evaluate the evidence ourselves; that would be original research. Rather, we should, ideally, look over all recent publications on the issue and see where they weigh in. If, for example, 40% of sources used Panthera five years ago, but 80% use it now, that would be more than enough grounds to justify a move. ("100%", obviously, is unnecessary.) An alternative is to just try to find an authoritative source on the subject, but the problem is that if the genetic research is recent, it may not be a factor in such a source's decision unless the authority's evaluation is similarly recent. Ultimately, whether we go with Panthera or Uncia for the genus is less important than whether we consistently and coherently report on the dispute. My problem isn't so much that we're weighing in on the wrong side of a disagreement, as that we don't explain to our readers what the disagreement is in an understandable way. And an aspect of this confusing inconsistency is the issue of whether snow leopards are more closely related to cheetahs than to leopards (which I'd find surprising even if snow leopards weren't in genus Panthera, since presumably they have to at least be very close to being pantherine if there's such a disagreement over the applicability of that genus here). -Silence 22:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as i know (from several papers) it is not clear if the snow leopard is at the base of the Panthera-group or even a sister-species of the leopard. But that dosent matter in this case. The snow leopard is definitely not very closely related to the cheetah. Molecular studies show that the cheetah is more closely related to the puma.--Altaileopard 10:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Major scientific and research organizations classify the snow leopard as Panthera uncia. I believe the main useage Uncia uncia in the article should be reverted. --Bentonia School (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Rarity.

I dont believe the article covers how rare this animal is. Nor does it tell on how elusive it is. Planet Earth has the only film (as far as i know) of a Snow Leopard's hunt.

No, the first video footage of a snow leopard hunting was revealed in the documentary Silent Roar: Searching for the Snow Leopard. --> http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=xpbIjUKt6wY&feature=channel The Planet Earth footage (which is utterly breath taking) is described in the documentary (Planet Earth, episode 2, "Mountains") as the first "intimate shots of the snow leopard in the wild." I take this to mean the first shots of a snow leopard and her cub in an intimate setting, ie, at the mouth of their den, snuggling, resting together, etc. --Bentonia School (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I noticed that a number of changes were made recently to the article. In particular, the name "snow leopard" has been capitalized throughout without any discussion on the talk page. None of the tertiary sources, like Britannica or Encarta capitalize "snow leopard;" none of the papers in the reference section capitalize (including a number in Science and other well-respected journals), and the IUCN doesn't capitalize. WikiProjectMammals doesn't take a position on capitalization; however, it does say: "In the absence of consensus: Respect the original or primary authors; do not up and change something without notification, as you may be reverted." I do understand the Wikipedia exhorts people to be bold, but a change like this should have been discussed on the talk page first. I am therefore rolling back the page to the version of 21st May before the changes were made. Please discuss here why you want to capitalize or make any other changes to the current version. For example, I don't see why the section on conservation was so drastically whittled down without any explanation and why some valuable references—the only references easily available on the web about conservation work in the snow leopard's habitat regions—were removed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm the one who added the capitalization, as I have been slowly making all mammal articles conform. The logic to the capitalization is at WP:BIRD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I'm not going to announce on each page that I touch, what I'm going to do beforehand, when I've been doing this for quite sometime. Sometimes it garners some discussion. Mostly, it goes on without anyone batting an eyelash. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand this logic for Aves, where there is a precedent for it in the reliable sources, but the precedent for the snow leopard is definitively against capitalization, as I have indicated above. Here again is the relevant section from WikiProject Mammals:Capitalization:


I won't revert right now, but please discuss why the precedent for birds should be applied to the snow leopard. As far as I remember (and I will double check today), I have never seen the snow leopard capitalized in the scientific literature.
Also, you didn't explain why you removed the conservation section. Thanks and regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to have this discussion over and over and over again. Nearly every time I do, the decision goes for capitalization. The only time it didn't (Cougar), the strongest supporter of noncapitalization eventually decided on his own that capitalization was better and went ahead and capitalized anyway. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you will have to have that discussion here pending a firm Wikipedia convention for capitalization of mammal names. I just read the cougar discussion, which is superficial at best. The main point is that Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources. During the course of the day, I will produce many such sources, none of which capitalize the name "snow leopard." You simply can't extrapolate a WP convention for Birds (which itself is not without problems) to mammals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In the standard book for mammals (walkers mammals of the world) and in other proper literature it´s always the "snow leopard"!!!!!! There is really no need for further discussion.--Altaileopard 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to mention that I didn´t read the comments above up to now. By checking an english book about birds I saw, that they are really all capitalized! Mammals are usually small. Actually I don´t care to much about that, but what is about frogs or insekts? Hmmm.... that is the first time, that I like the general capitalization of substanives in my german language:-). But anyway... I would prefer snow leopard, according to good literature.--Altaileopard 18:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is only in the Ornithology literature that they capitalize the names of birds. They don't do it in "Wildlife Studies," "Biology," "Conservation Biology," "Ecology" etc. (all the subfields of the Biological Sciences) that have articles on birds. I am collecting below a number of secondary sources on the "snow leopard." In the 50 or so that I have examined in the last 15 minutes, not a single one capitalizes the snow leopard.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization Convention in Secondary Sources for Snow Leopard

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


So, given all of these sources and a substantial argument, the snow leopard still remains the Snow Leopard. Why, exactly, is this? 142.167.96.12 04:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Because one single admin, UtherSRG, keeps reverting anyone else who fixes it. — Satori Son 01:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoops - see my explanation below. Looks like I should have left things be. — Satori Son 02:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Twycross Zoo

I think there should be something on Twycross zoo's project that will feature a new enclosure for snow leopards, I mean seeing them is a zoo is very rare, the enclosure it wll have 1 way glass where people can see them but they cant see outside, and the whole enclosure will be very accurate in modeling the animals natural habitait.

Construction is due to start in summer 2008 and is expected to take 18 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.87.179 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That information, if you can cite a verifiable and reliable source, would be appropriate on the zoo's article, not on this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of that information is already on the zoo's page, so thank you.

Snow Leopards

Under the description it states "In winter, it comes down into the forests at an altitude of about 2000m" one of the reasons for this is that the Leopards try to avoid the snow which is found at higher altitudes, they migrate to lower regions as stated, the article doesn't say why though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.93.107 (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Move

Shouldn't this article be moved to Snow leopard? AecisBrievenbus 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I fixed it, but UtherSRG reverted me. Looking through the history, I now see that everytime someone else has fixed it previously, UtherSRG reverted them, too. I have no idea what they could possibly be thinking. — Satori Son 01:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Found this tidbit over at WP:CAPS#Organisms: "The capitalization on the common names of species has been hotly debated in the past and has remained unresolved. As a matter of truce both capitalized and non-capitalized (except for proper names) are acceptable, but a redirect should be created from the alternative form." Frankly, I'm shocked that our naming conventions for animals do not yet have consensus this far into the project, but obviously I should not have made the move I did. Truce it is. — Satori Son 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Part of the reason we don't have an organism-wide policy is that they've agreed on WP:BIRDS to capitalize bird names like "Common Starling" throughout the article to distinguish from confusing terms like "common starling". It'd be nice to have consistency, but it's rather silly to go around talking about Lions (as if we're in Oz and they talk) when there's no risk of confusion with lions. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This seems highly unsatisfactory: we have the common name capitalised in the article title and the bold title, and thereafter it's not capitalised in the article text. Some sort of consistency would be nice. Personally, I wouldn't use running capitals for this name in text, so it seems fairly clear which should be used for the bold title and article title, but evidently this is not a universal view. Since the biology WPJ declines to have a general rule, perhaps we should urge some sort of consideration to be given at the "mammals" or indeed "cat" WPJ level. Alai (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The logic behind WP:BIRD's usage is sound. There are plenty of mammals that have the <adjective><noun> naming pattern of the majority of birds. Capitalizing the common name make it easy to distinguish the species (Red Squirrel) from a described individual (red squirrel). - UtherSRG (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Then argue for that as an explicit convention, don't assume that the WP:BIRD case is precedent for establishing or maintaining such a state. Especially as I say where it doens't conform to normal usage, or indeed the article's own usage. Alai (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Check the edit history of the article and talk page, and you'll see I've done just that. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

redux

Quoting the best of the above: "The capitalization on the common names of species has been hotly debated in the past and has remained unresolved. As a matter of truce both capitalized and non-capitalized (except for proper names) are acceptable, but a redirect should be created from the alternative form." - UtherSRG (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

reproduction

ive looked at othr animals and they all talk about reproduction. how many eggs,cubs u know stuff like that? why not here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.236.151 (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

endangered

i kno this animal is classified as endangered how come it doesn't tell why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.236.151 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of mammal common names?

Quoting user:UtherSRG above: Quoting the best of the above: "The capitalization on the common names of species has been hotly debated in the past and has remained unresolved. As matter of truce both capitalized and non-capitalized (except for proper names) are acceptable, but a redirect should be created from the alternative form." - UtherSRG (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that is hardly a precedent. Some editors on Wikipedia can't start a new naming convention in mammalogy by copying one from field guides for birds. Even academic ornithology doesn't capitalize uniformly (I mean articles on birds in journals in Wildlife Studies, Ecology, Physiology, Molecular Biology, Conservation Biology don't capitalize). And Wikipedia readers don't exactly need the capitalization to speedily grab their attention as they trudge up the Himalayan inclines and whip open their laptops when the quarry is spotted.
The convention in zoology and mammalogy is explicitly against capitalization. The American Society of Mammalogists and the National Museum of Natural History, the two organizations behind MSW3, Mammal Specials, and the Journal of Mammalogy, don't capitalize. How did this bogus tradition begin? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of lack of institutional support, the logic given at WP:BIRD is sound. Can you refute the logic? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
So is that of Chinese names in WP:NAMEPEOPLE, but we don't talk of Roosevelt Franklin Delano's New Deal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I propose an informal Wikipedia mediation on this topic at MedCab. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is the next correct step. No other avenue has led to a conclusion either way. The best we have is that individual projects can determine the right style. The mammal project in itself is undecided, although some subprojects support the style layed out in WP:BIRD. I don't believe there are any mammal subprojects that uphold lowercase. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Secondary and Tertiary Sources on Capitalization

Capitalization in prose (text)

As I have stated above, the convention in zoology (and, in particular, mammalogy) is explicitly against capitalization of common or vernacular names of mammals in text (prose). The convention is not new either. Please read the following review from 1947:

  • 2. And, here are the instructions for authors in the Journal of Mammalogy from 1935: Journal of Mammalogy also published by the American Society of Mammalogists. (ISSN 1545-1542, Bimonthly, the journal the flagship publication of the American Society of Mammalogists. Published since 1919, the highly respected international scientific journal promotes interest in mammals throughout the world by the publication of original and timely research on all aspects of the biology of mammals; e.g., ecology, genetics, conservation, behavior, and physiology.) Read the abstracts here. Not capitalizing vernacular or common names has been a long-standing convention in the journal. Here is the relevant instruction from the Suggestions for Preparation of Manuscripts Page, Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 16, No. 1. (Feb., 1935), "3. Do not capitalize vernacular names of animals or plants. Examples: raccoon; song sparrow; red maple."


Other sources that do not capitalize in prose
  • 3. Walker's Mammals of the World:
  • 4. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. See their Species Information: Neofelis nebulosa (Clouded Leopard). Note that in the taxonomy section, they write the common names in block capitals: CLOUDED LEOPARD (E), PANTHÈRE LONGIBANDE (F), PANTHÈRE NÉBULEUSE (F), PANTERA DEL HIMALAYA (S); however, in their detailed documentation, "clouded leopard" is not capitalized. (e.g. " The clouded leopard historically had a wide distribution in China, south of the Yangtze ... The clouded leopard is found from eastern foothills of the Himalayas through most of southeast Asia ..." (Boldfacing mine.)
  • 5. Encyclopaedia Britannica (2008):
  • 6. Encarta Encyclopedia (2008) does not capitalize mammal common names. Here is the article on the "Cat Family." As you can see the common names of the cats, big and small, are not capitalized in the text; neither are they capitalized in the texts of the individual articles (click on the links).

"Cat Family group of carnivorous (meat-eating) mammals considered the most highly developed for killing live prey ... The family includes powerful big cats such as the lion, the leopard, and the tiger, as well as the rugged puma and the high-speed cheetah, along with many smaller, secretive hunters such as the caracal, the ocelot, and the wildcat ... Cats are found in nearly all natural environments. For example, lynxes live in the icy cold of the Arctic tundra and snow leopards in the high mountains of Asia, whereas sand cats are found in the heat of African deserts and jaguars in the humid tropical rain forests of the Americas." (boldfacing mine)

Similarly, other mammal names in Encarta, not only the common ones, but even the lesser known, such as the following in the Encarta article on lemurs: "... Lemurs make up five closely related families within the primate order: the typical or true lemurs; the sportive lemurs; the dwarf lemurs and mouse lemurs; the indri, sifaka, and avahi; and the aye-aye." are not capitalized in the text. (Boldfacing mine).
  • 7. Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition (2001–2007). Their article cat says, "name applied broadly to the carnivorous mammals constituting the family Felidae, and specifically to the domestic cat, Felis catus. The great roaring cats, the lion, tiger, and leopard are anatomically very similar to one another and constitute the genus Panthera, which also includes the jaguar and, in some systems, the snow leopard. The clouded leopards, Neofelis, and the cheetah, ... Among these cats are the puma (or cougar), the lynx (including the bobcat), the ocelot, the jaguarundi, the serval, and many small species."
  • 8. Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia (2008) (might require subscription): Quote from their article cat: "... consists of the true cats ... and the cheetah (Acinonyx) ... Cats in the genus Panthera (sometimes Leo) (e.g., tiger and lion) roar but ... Cats in the genus Felis (e.g., cougar) can purr ... The wild cats include the bobcat, caracal, jaguar, leopard, lynx, ocelot, serval, snow leopard, and wildcat."
  • 9. Other encyclopedias: Google Books Advanced Search for "Snow Leopard" in books published between 1900 and 2008 with title word "Encyclopedia" (and with limited or full-view): of the 19 links not a single one capitalizes, unless it refers to Peter Matthiessen's novel, The Snow Leopard
  • 10. Macdonald, David. 2006. The Encyclopedia of Mammals (searchable on Amazon). Facts on File. 976 pages. ISBN 0199206082. (David Macdonald is Professor of Wildlife Conservation at the University of Oxford, Founder and Director of the Wildlife Conservation Unit at Oxford, and creator of the documentary Meerkats United.) The only instances of capitalization are either in the titles of articles or in the table of contents, but never in the text. This goes for all mammal species, big and small, well known and little known.
  • 11. Gould, Edwin, George McKay, and David S. Kirschner. 1998. Encyclopedia of Mammals. Academic Press. ISBN 0122936701. (See index on Amazon). (Edwin Gould is Curator Emeritus of the National Zoo, Smithsonian Institution, after 16 years as Head of the Department of Mammalogy.)
  • 12. Perrin, William F., Bernd Wursig, and J. G. M. Thewissen. 2002. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (Searchable on Amazon). Academic Press. 1414 pages. ISBN 0125513402. (William Perrin is with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)).
  • 13. Mammalian Species published by the American Society of Mammalogists, with 25-35 individual species accounts issued each year. Each uniform account summarizes the current understanding of the biology of an individual species including systematics, distribution, fossil history, genetics, anatomy, physiology, behavior, ecology, and conservation. The accounts vary from 2-14 pages depending upon what is known about the species (See their editorial board here; it includes Kristofer M. Helgen, Division of Mammals, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.)
  • 14. Mammal Review, published by The Mammal Society. Read their table of contents and abstracts (and one free pdf) here
  • 15. The Complete Oxford English Dictionary, draft revision, June 2008 (requires subscription): Entry for "ounce (2)": 1. A medium-sized member of the cat family, as a lynx, puma, or cheetah. Now arch. 2. The snow leopard, Panthera uncia, which has pale grey fur patterned with dark blotches and rings and is native to the Altai Mountains, Hindu Kush, and Himalayas."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

More examples

Capitalization of page name

As for page names themselves, I don't particularly care, whether "Snow leopard," "SNOW LEOPARD," "Snow Leopard," or "snow leopard" is chosen; whatever is most consonant with Wikipedia convention is fine, but it seems that "Snow leopard" would be the logical choice. Page names in print encyclopedias often follow the convention in the table of contents, where most entries are capitalized, or at least the first letter of the name is, but no matter how they list a species in the table of contents, capitalization of mammal names in the text (i.e. in prose) is a no-no.
  • Finally, MSW3: Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd Edition. Don E.Wilson and DeeAnn M. Reeder (eds.). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2005, 2,142 pp., 2 vols., ISBN 0-8018-8221-4. MSW3 itself is a systematics guide and says nothing about capitalization in prose, but it is produced by the American Society of Mammalogists, who, in turn publish Journal of Mammalogy (see above) and Mammalian Species (see also above), neither of which capitalize in text (prose). Further, MSW3, explicitly mentions IUCN and Walker's Mammals of the World (see above), none of which capitalize either in prose. In the review of MSW3 by B. D. Patterson (J Mammal Evol (2007) 14:67–69 DOI 10.1007/s10914-006-9022-6), Patterson states, "Like its predecessors, the third edition of Mammal Species of the World (MSW3) is a product of the Checklist Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists. ... Information in each account of MSW3 follows a standard format that lists sequentially: scientific name, author, year and publication details; common name; type locality, sometimes verbatim but more often standardized; distribution, listing all range countries in which the species occurs; conservation status, denoting the most recent CITES, U.S. ESA, and/or IUCN listing for the species; any designated synonyms (including their authorship and year of publication) and recognized subspecies; and comments, ... The potential to link the edition’s rich taxonomic information with the extensive biological details of Walker’s Mammals of the World (also published by Johns Hopkins) and with the IUCN’s assessments of species status and threats is rich."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia inconsistencies

In the cat pages below, Capitalized In Text indicates that the common name is capitalized in the text of the article, whereas not capitalized in text indicates that name is not capitalized in the text of the article.

Total: not capitalized in text = 19; Capitalized In Text = 19 (of which 8 are stubs or very short articles); Unclear = 3 (in case of two or three-line stubs) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Source styles are not relevant, since they do not agree. Chicago MoS says when sources do not agree on style, we can choose our own style. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

They don't? Can you produce five sources (as reliable as the 15 above) that capitalize "snow leopard" in prose? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Fowler's research is pretty impressive. If the species is referred to as "snow leopard" in virtually all of the scientific literature, seems to me like that's what we should use, too. — Satori Son 21:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a researcher. I'm not good at finding the information. On one of the other talks, someone else has already produced a listing of sources that *do* use capitalization. The argument has been made before, but the fact remains that capitalization in sources *is* mixed, and because of that, the Chicago MoS gives us leave to do as we wish. In addition, it behooves us to *not* follow old-style print sources blindly. We are not an old-style print-bound encyclopedia. It is our perogative and our responsibility to not be blind to new ways of doing things, so as to produce a better encyclopedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, we aren't a mammal-specific resource. We are general purpose. We shouldn't put blinders on and only look at mammal sources to make our decisions. We should make the decisions that make the entire encyclopedia the best, not just the mammal section of the encyclopedia, especially if it puts us at odds with other parts of the encyclopedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry UtherSRG. I think you are doing a very good job in wiki by checking, upgrading and cleaning a lot of articles and I really don´t want to displease you, but I think it would be better to follow standard literature. In Walker´s mammals of the world and all papers I know, animal names are in small letters- except for the topic. I don´t know how it is handled in birds, reptiles ect. but we should follow common scientific style to be accepted by scientists and critical readers.--Altaileopard (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should dicuss that on another page. For example on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life--Altaileopard (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I will be seeking mediation soon, and user:UtherSRG too seems to think it is a good idea. I've been busy this past week and will remain so through Tuesday of next week; so I've been using this talk page in a low-key way (as and when I can find the time) to collect information for the eventual mediation. If you can wait until Wednesday, we can then discuss how to pitch the Request for Mediation. MedCab might ask us to do an RfC and we could then discuss where to do it; on the other hand, they might go straight for a mediation and we could then discuss how wide to cast our net (in terms of species/genera/families). Let me know what you think of this (idea of waiting until Wednesday). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I already asked on Tree of life, but actually there seems to be not so much interest in this problem (See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Capitalization). I am fine with your idea as far as I understand you, but I have some problems to follow you, as I do not know what is an RfC.--Altaileopard (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but it is flat out not true that the Chicago Manual of Style says or in any way implies "when sources do not agree on style, we can choose our own style". It says in section 8.136: "For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.127. In any one work, a single source should be followed. In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives, as in the following examples, which conform to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Dutchman's-breeches, mayapple, jack-in-the-pulpit, rhesus monkey, Rocky Mountain sheep, Cooper's hawk." An argument that the CMoS is so important to follow is an argument that this and other mammal articles should have lowercase common names. Beyazid (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Until there is no consense, I will use lower case names for my new edits.--Altaileopard (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalisation_of_common_names_of_species is pretty clear now: "In general, common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in sentence case". Birds and possibly some other groups are listed as exceptions, but cats are not in any of those groups. I'll move it back to Snow leopard. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of page has disappeared

I have made a small change in putting a citation under Conservation Efforts wehre an editor had requested the citation. However as well as this all of the content below this citation (no. 12) has disappeared. Can some-one please upload the previous version of the article again?sibyllenoras 08:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You had introduced a typo. I fixed it. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can It Roar?

From the article: "It cannot roar, despite possessing an incomplete ossification of the hyoid bone, which was previously thought to be essential for allowing the big cats to roar. However, new studies show that the ability to roar is due to other morphological features, especially of the larynx, which are absent in the snow leopard."

So... can it or can't it roar? Is this just a typo in the first sentence? Excise (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it cannot. As the article says, "It cannot roar, despite possessing an incomplete ossification of the hyoid bone". This is mentioned because it used to be thought that it was this ossification that was what gave big cats the ability to roar (which is essentially what the next sentence and a half says). I'll change it a little to try and make it clearer. Secret Squïrrel, approx 06:05, 16 Johnuary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)
An incomplete ossification of the hyoid bone (which is needed for the ability, etc etc) implies, at least to me, that it shouldn't be able to roar due to the requirements not being complete. Sort of like how humans would have trouble speaking if we only had half a throat :-) Excise (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's the other way around. In adult humans and the majority of mammals this bone is fully ossified (ie it is a bone!). It supports the base of the tongue and provides structural strength to the larynx which, in turn, supports and protects the trachea (windpipe) as well as being used to produce and modulate sound. Incomplete ossification means that some of the hyoid is still cartilege - it trades structural integrity for mobility, which presumably provides some additional functionality that is advantageous for those animals that possess it (incomplete ossification). Hope that helps :-) Secret Squïrrel, approx 02:05, 17 Johnuary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)
Thanks for the update. The modification to that section looks good! Excise (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Excise said:"...implies, at least to me, that it shouldn't be able to roar due to the requirements not being complete. Sort of like how humans would have trouble speaking if we only had half a throat" The example that you gave does not match. In fact, according to a wikipedia article, the ability to roar is allowed just by the incomplete ossification; the complete ossification is not required for that. In the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera it says:"Only the four Panthera cat species have the anatomical structure that enables them to roar. The primary reason for this was formerly assumed to be the incomplete ossification of the hyoid bone." That is, the snow leopard's inability to roar is not due to the incompleteness of the ossification but is due to the different morphological features of the larynx.

Excise said:"can it or can't it roar? Is this just a typo" It is not a typo, it says only that this incomplete ossification of the hyoid bone is essential. Essential here means necessary and does not mean sufficient; there is no contradiction in the text; that means that it is a necessary non-sufficient condition for the ability to roar in big cats, thus, the ability to roar implies having an incompletely ossified hyoid bone but the reciprocal is false, having an incompletely ossified hyoid bone does not imply being able to roar. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency --A.ouerfelli (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Taxonomy

if it says that they're in the genus Panthera, then is it still in Uncia? I beg to know? Rory (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It can only be in one (unless Uncia is made a sub-genus of Panthera) but which one is an open question at this point. The latest molecular DNA study seems to indicate that it is sufficiently closely related to Panthers (lion, leopard, jaguar) to warrant inclusion in the genus but it is only one study. I'm a big fan of this type of study but it is not immune from sampling bias or human error, so until there is more supporting evidence, more conservative workers will tend to leave it in Uncia. Hence the ambiguity in the lead sentence, and the explanation under Taxonomy. Secret Squïrrel, approx 10:55, 29 Markh 2009 (Earth Standard Time)
Whatever. Rory (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Generally on WP we follow Mammal Species of the World 3rd edition, which currently keeps it as Uncia: see MSW: Uncia. I've tidied the taxonomy a bit (but couldn't work out an authority for Panthera uncia). It's the same animal, of course, whatever we call it... Richard New Forest (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
A recent study confirmed the results that some earlier studies had obtained: the tiger is the most recent relative of the snow leopard, so it must belong to genus Panthera. See this url: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8512000/8512455.stm DaMatriX (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's wait until that primary source is incorporated into a listing of some sort, that more than just that scientist says this. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

IUCN places them in Panthera uncia now. Most of the world's authorities on cats post on Cat News(http://www.catsg.org) and they refer to it as Panthera. I have updated the lead and taxonomy section to reflect that but I left the table alone and kept the MSW classification to balance it. MSW has not been updated since 2000 so I think it is time to at least balance it with IUCN and the current consensus of the scientific community.

They are currently working with non-invasive genetic studies using scat. I wonder should we mention this or wait for further studies?Jobberone (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Because of some common characteristics of the Panthera species (tigris, leo, onca and pardus) that do not fit with the uncia species like roaring, it is somewhat unfair to put it in the same genus Panthera. In the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_cat we have in the classification: Genus Panthera (roaring or great cats). I find it better if they settle this problem by including the Uncia genus in a tribe that we might call pantherini that would include the two genera Uncia and Panthera because of the historical similarities of these two genera. Thus, the subfamily Pantherinae will contain Neofelis and Pantherini wich contains the five species uncia, pardus, onca, leo and tigris.A.ouerfelli (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this "pantherini" your own creation or can you cite references where it is used as you suggest? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no clade as "pantherini" in the moment but it is just my suggestion. This is a middle solution between letting the uncia species in the genus Uncia and moving it to the genus Panthera. You are right, I didn't explain well. This suggestion is not about changing the content of wikipedia articles but about scientific classification. We will change the classification only when it changes formally.--A.ouerfelli (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, so it is original research of a sorts, and not allowed. We can list things as documented by the sources that exist, and talk about the controversy and lack of knowledge those sources discuss, but we can't create our own concepts and add them to the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Strange vandalism

There is a strange vandalism at the end of the Breeding and Life Cycle section. It says "they eat pie to along with I'm a barbie girl living in a barbie world", but I couldn't see this statement in the editable document. Sorry, maybe someone else who understands these edits better than I do can remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.175.48 (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


"Snow leopard" is NOT a proper noun

Snow leopard is NOT a proper noun. On the contrary, Snow Leopard is. When I type "Snow Leopard" into the URL bar, I expect to be taken to Mac OS Snow Leopard. When I type in "Snow leopard", I expect to be taken to an article about the cat. This is very simple to me and I do not understand your confusion. There are not other types of leopards that live in the snow other than the snow leopard. Thus, the way some bird articles have been written clearly does not apply to this article. Please continue consistency throughout Wikipedia, and not just because UtherSRG prefers "Snow Leopard". I am moving the article to Snow leopard and turning Snow Leopard into a redirect page. I will do this once. Mac Davis (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right of course – it's not a proper noun and really ought to be given lower case initials. However for mammals and several other groups we seem to be in a minority at the moment, and the consensus seems to be to leave each article as it is – see extensive discussion above, and elsewhere. To my Eye giving common Nouns capital Initials makes Everything look like German. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Haha. The capitalization doesn't necessarily remind me as much of German, but that might be because the only noun that's capitalized is the topic of the page. But I agree with Mac Davis in that the capital "Snow Leopard" clearly refers to something else; and there are no other kinds of "snow leopards" as far as I know. --V2Blast (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms

Panthera uncia is not a synonym. It is an alternate or prior placement of uncia in Panthera. irbis is a synonym, originally described under genus Felis. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, surely no... Panthera uncia and Uncia uncia are alternative scientific names for the same species, and is that not exactly what synonyms are? Yes, the species epithet is the same, but the whole point of a binomial name is that it consists of both the genus and species elements. You are right that irbis and uncia are synonyms, but that is not the only kind of synonym: synonyms may also occur at the genus level. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
uncia Schreber 1775 refers to one particular description, one particular species, no matter what genus that species is placed in. It's not a synonym. But, even if you want to call it a synonym, that section of the taxobox is for taxonomic synonyms. If uncia were moved back to Panthera, making Uncia and empty genus, then Uncia would be a synonym of Panthera. That would be a genus level synonym, and it would be appropriate to put it on the Panthera taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Not what Synonym (taxonomy) seems to say at all... I am not convinced: a synonym is a different name for the same thing, and scientific names are binomial. I think you are confusing species synonyms with synonyms more generally; I don't think this is technically correct, and it is certainly counter-intuitive: we currently have the extraordinary situation that the most commonly known alternative binomial is not listed as a synyonym. Have you a link for the WP policy that the taxobox "synonym" section is not to be used for synonyms at genus level? Richard New Forest (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I get very frustrated working on policy. I let others deal with that. I go by what I read, particularly from MSW3. It lists only epithets for species and subspecies synonyms. After that, I'd check ICZN for their preferred listing format. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The working definition of synonym varies - some use only junior synonyms as pointed out here, other works include new combinations and still others will include pro parte synonyms - on WP there has never been an attempt to define what the taxobox field synonym strictly means and this seems to often lead to this kind of discussion. Fishbase has a nice commentary on this. The broader definition, if used, may do better if the taxobox field name label is changed and these "other scientific names" greatly aid in researching older literature. Shyamal (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, MSW does do it like that – but that's a very different situation: it is a technical source which deals with the two types of syonyms in different entries, as there are entries for genera and species separately. WP is for a lay readership, and we do not have a separate page for Uncia (genus). I notice that the Fishbase synonyms table does include combinations, misspellings etc. So what are we going to do here? Richard New Forest (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Any more comments? At present I can see no good reason not to restore Panthera uncia to the synonym box. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I still object to putting it there. I think the taxobox should handle only actually synonyms, not different placements. The text is a much better way to handle the alternate placement. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yours is one definition of "synonym". As we have seen the broader one is very widely used (see also for example this highly respected source). Why should we choose the narrow one here? I still can see no good reason for such a limitation, especially as it will be confusing to the lay reader (remember the Principle of Least Surprise). Can you think of a reason other than your own feelings? Have you any sources for the strict use of the narrow definition in general (or indeed technical) writing? "Synonym" can mean a species synonym or a combination synonym, and as far as I can see the synonym section in the taxobox is for both. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
One more point. If the taxobox is really only for species synonyms, it ought to list only the epithet, not the genus: in this case just uncia and irbis. In practice we do always include the genus, and logically this indicates that combination synonyms should also be covered here. (I've put a link to this discussion at Template talk:Taxobox#Synonyms.) Richard New Forest (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you 100% there. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Aren't you being a tiny bit disingenuous? I am sure you must have understood my argument: we always do put the genus in the synonym field, and therefore it must cover combination synonyms too. Richard New Forest (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
No, we don't always put the genus there. I never put the genus there. (And not, I had misunderstood your point at first, but I see that you weren't meaning what I thought you meant, but still, I do agree that we shouldn't put the genus there given what I think should be listed for synonyms. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Uncia uncia is a new combination, not a new name, and as such, not a synonym. Synonyms are at the same rank, binomial combinations are not of the same rank, but supersede ranks, hence called new combination, and not new name. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

updated synonyms

From Colin GroveS: There are actually other synonyms of Uncia uncia; a colleague of mine is at present revising the species, and thinks there may be subspecies, and I compiled the following synonymy for him:

  • irbis Ehrenberg, 1830. Altai Mountains (renaming of uncia).
  • uncioides Hodgson in Horsfield, 1855. nomen nudum.
  • baikalensis-romanii Medvedev, 2000. “Spurs of the Malkhan range in the Petrovsk-Zabaikal region, Chita Region on the river Ungo”.

- UtherSRG (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget:
  • schneideri (Zukowsky, 1950)
-- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
There is at present ongoing studies as to the number of subspecies. I haven't visited this recently but the last time I did they thought there were at most two subspecies. I don't remember much else but I did put a ref in the lead. Until we get more definite data I'm of the opinion we should leave the subspecies either nebulous or detailed information about the current data.
I also think we should leave the nomenclature in the lead and box as is which is the current status. If we just use Panthera there will be some confusion amongst those who aren't interested in the topic as we are. Jobberone (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent revisions

I'm done for the time being although I still see room for improvement. I'd like others to look at my revisions before making more. I'm going back to the States next week and I'll have better and more stable access and will be able to find some of the primary sources for references. I'm going to contact Jackson or McCarthy as well as the Cat Spec Grp and get some more info if I can and hopefully get permission to use their updated distribution map. There are some references out there on loss of habitat over the last 15 or so years. There's been a 50% reduction in population size however there's also some surprising data on an increase in size of their range with a shift to a more northern range. I can't access it from China or I've just forgotten where to look for it. I'm having to deal with hans zi script a great deal because I can't access many search engines here. And I can't read pinyin well much less hans zi! Look forward to hearing from you.Jobberone (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not contact anyone. I've been too busy since returning to the States. I did change the range and habitat of the Snow Leopard back to Central Asia and provided a ref for same from the Snow Leopard Trust which has the latest stats and are as best as they can get given the problems.Jobberone (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Current range

Someone changed the range in the lead to Asia from Central Asia. The ref I added (#4) months ago does not reflect that. AFAIK there is no recent data that reflects any change from that distribution. If anyone has recent data reflecting a change in distribution then I'd like to see it. There has been some movement northwards into other areas of C Asia but AFAIK no extension into SE Asia. Jobberone (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snow_leopard/Archive_1&oldid=1137191543"