![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Hi, User:SilverTiger12: I suggest that we carefully check the sources that you just added whether these authors question the taxonomy by the Cat SG and provide new evidence that the Asiatic lion should be regarded a lion subspecies; or whether they just neglected the taxonomy by Cat SG task force. It seems to me that latter is the case. @ Jts1882: your opinion ? -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 18:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I read the publications that SilverTiger12 added as references for the argument that Asiatic lion is still considered a subspecies by majority of post-CatSG (2017) sources; ...
. It is however evident that none of these authors discussed taxonomic status of the lion in India and elsewhere. None of them even referred to the revision of felid taxonomy by Kitchener et al. (2017) ! But they provided info about historical distribution of the Asiatic lion, population status in Gir and behaviour of captive Asiatic lions. Hence, none of these refs contain an argument pro or contra the change of taxonomic status. And since these authors did NOT clearly reject this revision, we should not misinterpret them here by pretending they did. I therefore advocate to revert content to the previous version of this lion being a P. p. leo population. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
05:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Since the late 19th century, several authors wrote about wildlife in Afghanistan:
There is no evidence to show that the lion inhabited Afghanistan or Baluchistan within historic times.
I’m not aware of the evidence of its former existence in Afghanistan, see page 213.
I have a few more refs re no lion in Afghanistan. Therefore : referring to the country in the lead is erroneous. Should I add all these refs to main page, e.g. in a separate section? -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 19:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
— Jts1882 | talk 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
… that the lion existed in Afghanistan 75 years ago. This is mere heresay, but it sounds reasonable, cited by Harper 1945. The only authors who considered it plausible that lion might have occurred in the country were Heptner & Sludskii (1992), who referred to Harper (1945), see footnote there. Whereas others like Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) and Nowell & Jackson (1996) decided to not fall for the hunter lore. Therefore I think, the lion iucn assessors' logic is : if it had occurred, it was extirpated before anyone wrote about it. But authenticated evidence does not exist that lion ever entered the country, i.e. no skin found in a bazaar, no lion sighted nor shot at any particular place in the country. The 19th century natural historians -- Blyth, Sterndale, Jerdon -- would have known about it. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 21:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Mohanasses, would you please stop adding badly sourced, badly written, and bady positioned material into Asiatic lion and Mugger crocodile? Youtube videos are rarely if ever reliable sources; there is no excuse for making sweeping generalizations about predation based on single incidents; and in no case is it acceptable to embellish a statement with editorial comments and purple prose. You have been multiply reverted by different people, please take the hint and discuss the matter here instead of edit-warring. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
dear Elmidae I took a screenshot & link of our struggle while you bulleying another user to block him unrightfully & unlawfully using unsuitable use of your so-called power ... you're defending a biased section & banning any effort to edit it with even if the editor publicise more than 8 different kind of sources including 2 youtube videos representing live events refuting all your claims, & I'll keep editin those biased sections without being afraid of blocking, Thanks
"Buddhist monks, or possibly traders, possibly brought descriptions of sculpted lions guarding the entry to temples in China."
This doesn't make sense. "Buddhist monks, or possibly traders, possibly brought descriptions of sculpted lions guarding the entry to temples in India" would make more sense because the "sculpted lions" must be gate guardians for Indian temples in order for descriptions to be brought to China. Better still, "Buddhist monks, or possibly traders, possibly brought to China descriptions of sculpted lions guarding the entry to Indian temples", however I'm disinclined to make a second edit after my first was reverted, lest the wiki overlords accuse me of edit-warring. 148.252.132.73 ( talk) 02:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Genetic research clearly indicates, that the Asiatic lion (together with the extinct North African lions) forms not just a "population" (whatever that is in taxonomy) but a distinctive subclade of the Northern lion. I would add this to the topic. In every case, we should delete the "population". That is in my opinion not a scientific term.-- Altaileopard ( talk) 13:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Hi, User:SilverTiger12: I suggest that we carefully check the sources that you just added whether these authors question the taxonomy by the Cat SG and provide new evidence that the Asiatic lion should be regarded a lion subspecies; or whether they just neglected the taxonomy by Cat SG task force. It seems to me that latter is the case. @ Jts1882: your opinion ? -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 18:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I read the publications that SilverTiger12 added as references for the argument that Asiatic lion is still considered a subspecies by majority of post-CatSG (2017) sources; ...
. It is however evident that none of these authors discussed taxonomic status of the lion in India and elsewhere. None of them even referred to the revision of felid taxonomy by Kitchener et al. (2017) ! But they provided info about historical distribution of the Asiatic lion, population status in Gir and behaviour of captive Asiatic lions. Hence, none of these refs contain an argument pro or contra the change of taxonomic status. And since these authors did NOT clearly reject this revision, we should not misinterpret them here by pretending they did. I therefore advocate to revert content to the previous version of this lion being a P. p. leo population. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
05:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Since the late 19th century, several authors wrote about wildlife in Afghanistan:
There is no evidence to show that the lion inhabited Afghanistan or Baluchistan within historic times.
I’m not aware of the evidence of its former existence in Afghanistan, see page 213.
I have a few more refs re no lion in Afghanistan. Therefore : referring to the country in the lead is erroneous. Should I add all these refs to main page, e.g. in a separate section? -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 19:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
— Jts1882 | talk 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
… that the lion existed in Afghanistan 75 years ago. This is mere heresay, but it sounds reasonable, cited by Harper 1945. The only authors who considered it plausible that lion might have occurred in the country were Heptner & Sludskii (1992), who referred to Harper (1945), see footnote there. Whereas others like Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) and Nowell & Jackson (1996) decided to not fall for the hunter lore. Therefore I think, the lion iucn assessors' logic is : if it had occurred, it was extirpated before anyone wrote about it. But authenticated evidence does not exist that lion ever entered the country, i.e. no skin found in a bazaar, no lion sighted nor shot at any particular place in the country. The 19th century natural historians -- Blyth, Sterndale, Jerdon -- would have known about it. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 21:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Mohanasses, would you please stop adding badly sourced, badly written, and bady positioned material into Asiatic lion and Mugger crocodile? Youtube videos are rarely if ever reliable sources; there is no excuse for making sweeping generalizations about predation based on single incidents; and in no case is it acceptable to embellish a statement with editorial comments and purple prose. You have been multiply reverted by different people, please take the hint and discuss the matter here instead of edit-warring. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
dear Elmidae I took a screenshot & link of our struggle while you bulleying another user to block him unrightfully & unlawfully using unsuitable use of your so-called power ... you're defending a biased section & banning any effort to edit it with even if the editor publicise more than 8 different kind of sources including 2 youtube videos representing live events refuting all your claims, & I'll keep editin those biased sections without being afraid of blocking, Thanks
"Buddhist monks, or possibly traders, possibly brought descriptions of sculpted lions guarding the entry to temples in China."
This doesn't make sense. "Buddhist monks, or possibly traders, possibly brought descriptions of sculpted lions guarding the entry to temples in India" would make more sense because the "sculpted lions" must be gate guardians for Indian temples in order for descriptions to be brought to China. Better still, "Buddhist monks, or possibly traders, possibly brought to China descriptions of sculpted lions guarding the entry to Indian temples", however I'm disinclined to make a second edit after my first was reverted, lest the wiki overlords accuse me of edit-warring. 148.252.132.73 ( talk) 02:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Genetic research clearly indicates, that the Asiatic lion (together with the extinct North African lions) forms not just a "population" (whatever that is in taxonomy) but a distinctive subclade of the Northern lion. I would add this to the topic. In every case, we should delete the "population". That is in my opinion not a scientific term.-- Altaileopard ( talk) 13:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)