Glad to see you as well! Thanks for such a detailed review, I clearly need to recall a lot of points I overlooked after a long break :D I believe I have addressed everything, please take a look. Cheers,
Sainsf(
talk·contribs)14:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
In the lead, "native to the southwestern United States, Mexico, Central and South America" seems a bit redundant with "Their range extends from the southwestern United States to northern Argentina"
Going by the Wiki article it is spoken by the Nahua people of Mexico and El Salvador. Nothing except the name of the language in the source. Should I add anything here?
Seems to be part of the article's legacy. Omitted the part.
"Eventually zoologist Joel Asaph Allen among others placed the ocelot in the genus Leopardus (described by Gray in 1842)" I'm sure you have a year for this, and to which Gray are you referring to? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The Mammal Species of the World entry states a few authors (and the respective years) who included ocelot in Leopardus (20th century onward). Allen did it in his 1919 paper, then there were a few others whose details I could not find, and the authors of the Mammalian Species article (1997) were also mentioned. I went with mentioning just one author as an example.
You mean in
this work? Seems both L. griseus and L. picteus actually refer to the ocelot (enlisted as synonyms for L. pardalis in Mammalian Species), would it be fine to just use this source to say Gray was the first to put it in the genus? Like does the source suffice?
Sainsf(
talk·contribs)06:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The CatSG source says "Microsatellite differentiation identified three groups; Texas, Central America and South America (excluding eastern Brazil)". I chose to keep the wording intact.
The source says subspecies are L. p. albescens from the Tex-Mex border, L. p. pardis from Central America, and there aren't many genetic differences among the proposed South American subspecies (namely aequatorialis, pseudopardalis, melanura, and steinbachi), and South American ocelots could be classified as L. p. pseudopardalis, but the southern South American form could be L. p. mitis. I think the "Bolivian populations are smaller" is when they were referring to steinbachi, and they said there was bias because the steinbachi skulls were smaller User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Instead of that last sentence in the 1st par of Subspecies, you could say, "In 2013, a study of craniometric variation and microsatellite diversity in ocelots throughout the range recognized three subspecies: L. p. albescens from the Texas–Mexico border, L. p. pardis from Central America and L. p. pseudopardalis from South America, though L. p. mitis may describe ocelots from the southern half of its South American range." I don't know where I got the 5th one from actually User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk20:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The source didn't actually say Bolivian ocelots ("L. p. steinbachi") are smaller, it said that the Bolivian ocelots used in the study were generally smaller than the other ocelots which would introduce bias and skew results a bit User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk17:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Right, the knowledge about unique spot pattern in ocelots is not new, but the research into using the pattern for unique identification of ocelots appears to be new. I can not find more info on this (is it already in use, is it the first paper to propose a method to do it?) Could you suggest how we should mention this here, unless it is irrelevant and should be removed?
I try to say factors other than those aforementioned are not so important. Reworded.
I think the first paragraph of Habitat could be reorganized and condensed a bit. There seems to be 2 factors determining distribution: things that change prey availability, and avoiding competition/humans. It should be clear there's just these 2 User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Small grammar lesson: "Ocelots are carnivores, and primarily active during twilight and at night" because you used "and", you now have 2 independent clauses, so it should be "Ocelots are carnivores, and are primarily active during twilight and at night". If you remove "and", you now have an independent and a dependent clause, so you can say "Ocelots are carnivores, primarily active during twilight and at night" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I am not sure how exactly we can merge them. Could use some suggestions here.
Heading Interactions with humans, subheadings Poaching, Habitat loss, Spotted fur trade, In art/In heraldry/etc., etc. and I don't really get why Lily Pons is mentioned. Were ocelots not very popular exotic pets back when that was a popular thing? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Rearranged. I could not find reliable sources for their popularity as pets, just two well-supported examples. I wish I could just call them famous exotic pets.
Sainsf(
talk·contribs)17:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Sometime in the 1970s, unable to find the exact year.
According to this
NYT article from 1972, the US didn't specifically impose a ban on spotted cat fur, but added spotted cats to the Endangered Species List so that Congress could control and inhibit trade.
this book has a lot of good info on the spotted fur trade
The source does not exactly specify it, probably refers to low immunity of such individuals. Anyway, removed.
"According to the IUCN, ocelot hunting has been banned in" I don't think we need to specifically call out the IUCN on this point. Laws are public domain, these are not postulations of a study, these are facts User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm finding two books from 1904 (
this and
this) saying "According to the well-known myth, Tezcatlipoca, when cast down from heaven by Quetzalcoatl, 'fell into the water where he transformed himself into an ocelot' and arose to kill certain giants" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk15:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
What would be a good way to add it in the text with examples from the facts mentioned? I mention sexual dimorphism if at all the species shows it, so I'm gonna do it for the first time.
Sainsf(
talk·contribs)06:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Glad to see you as well! Thanks for such a detailed review, I clearly need to recall a lot of points I overlooked after a long break :D I believe I have addressed everything, please take a look. Cheers,
Sainsf(
talk·contribs)14:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
In the lead, "native to the southwestern United States, Mexico, Central and South America" seems a bit redundant with "Their range extends from the southwestern United States to northern Argentina"
Going by the Wiki article it is spoken by the Nahua people of Mexico and El Salvador. Nothing except the name of the language in the source. Should I add anything here?
Seems to be part of the article's legacy. Omitted the part.
"Eventually zoologist Joel Asaph Allen among others placed the ocelot in the genus Leopardus (described by Gray in 1842)" I'm sure you have a year for this, and to which Gray are you referring to? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The Mammal Species of the World entry states a few authors (and the respective years) who included ocelot in Leopardus (20th century onward). Allen did it in his 1919 paper, then there were a few others whose details I could not find, and the authors of the Mammalian Species article (1997) were also mentioned. I went with mentioning just one author as an example.
You mean in
this work? Seems both L. griseus and L. picteus actually refer to the ocelot (enlisted as synonyms for L. pardalis in Mammalian Species), would it be fine to just use this source to say Gray was the first to put it in the genus? Like does the source suffice?
Sainsf(
talk·contribs)06:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The CatSG source says "Microsatellite differentiation identified three groups; Texas, Central America and South America (excluding eastern Brazil)". I chose to keep the wording intact.
The source says subspecies are L. p. albescens from the Tex-Mex border, L. p. pardis from Central America, and there aren't many genetic differences among the proposed South American subspecies (namely aequatorialis, pseudopardalis, melanura, and steinbachi), and South American ocelots could be classified as L. p. pseudopardalis, but the southern South American form could be L. p. mitis. I think the "Bolivian populations are smaller" is when they were referring to steinbachi, and they said there was bias because the steinbachi skulls were smaller User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Instead of that last sentence in the 1st par of Subspecies, you could say, "In 2013, a study of craniometric variation and microsatellite diversity in ocelots throughout the range recognized three subspecies: L. p. albescens from the Texas–Mexico border, L. p. pardis from Central America and L. p. pseudopardalis from South America, though L. p. mitis may describe ocelots from the southern half of its South American range." I don't know where I got the 5th one from actually User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk20:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The source didn't actually say Bolivian ocelots ("L. p. steinbachi") are smaller, it said that the Bolivian ocelots used in the study were generally smaller than the other ocelots which would introduce bias and skew results a bit User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk17:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Right, the knowledge about unique spot pattern in ocelots is not new, but the research into using the pattern for unique identification of ocelots appears to be new. I can not find more info on this (is it already in use, is it the first paper to propose a method to do it?) Could you suggest how we should mention this here, unless it is irrelevant and should be removed?
I try to say factors other than those aforementioned are not so important. Reworded.
I think the first paragraph of Habitat could be reorganized and condensed a bit. There seems to be 2 factors determining distribution: things that change prey availability, and avoiding competition/humans. It should be clear there's just these 2 User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Small grammar lesson: "Ocelots are carnivores, and primarily active during twilight and at night" because you used "and", you now have 2 independent clauses, so it should be "Ocelots are carnivores, and are primarily active during twilight and at night". If you remove "and", you now have an independent and a dependent clause, so you can say "Ocelots are carnivores, primarily active during twilight and at night" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I am not sure how exactly we can merge them. Could use some suggestions here.
Heading Interactions with humans, subheadings Poaching, Habitat loss, Spotted fur trade, In art/In heraldry/etc., etc. and I don't really get why Lily Pons is mentioned. Were ocelots not very popular exotic pets back when that was a popular thing? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Rearranged. I could not find reliable sources for their popularity as pets, just two well-supported examples. I wish I could just call them famous exotic pets.
Sainsf(
talk·contribs)17:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Sometime in the 1970s, unable to find the exact year.
According to this
NYT article from 1972, the US didn't specifically impose a ban on spotted cat fur, but added spotted cats to the Endangered Species List so that Congress could control and inhibit trade.
this book has a lot of good info on the spotted fur trade
The source does not exactly specify it, probably refers to low immunity of such individuals. Anyway, removed.
"According to the IUCN, ocelot hunting has been banned in" I don't think we need to specifically call out the IUCN on this point. Laws are public domain, these are not postulations of a study, these are facts User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm finding two books from 1904 (
this and
this) saying "According to the well-known myth, Tezcatlipoca, when cast down from heaven by Quetzalcoatl, 'fell into the water where he transformed himself into an ocelot' and arose to kill certain giants" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk15:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
What would be a good way to add it in the text with examples from the facts mentioned? I mention sexual dimorphism if at all the species shows it, so I'm gonna do it for the first time.
Sainsf(
talk·contribs)06:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply