This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This is an extremely well-written article-- worthy of praise. The writing is clear, strong and information-rich. I really enjoyed reading it.
Sean7phil 05:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it seems to have been written with reader clarity firmly in mind; an attribute of writing that never fails to impress. user:quantum density
Great article!! One small but important correction please. The Puma was rediscovered in the west of Uruguay in 1997, by the biologist Juan Carlos Rudolf (Faculty of Science, University of Republic, Montevideo) close to Nuevo Berlin, in the Department of Rio Negro. The most recent record (also by Juan Carlos) was in 2006. Yambuldai.
Great! If you have a reference, let us know. Marskell 12:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This sentence in the Taxonomy section strikes me as odd: The Cheetah, after diverging from Puma, migrated backwards. From the context, it implies that the Cheetah species in question is the African Cheetah and not the prehistoric American cheetah. Does this mean that the predecessors to the Cougar migrated from Asia to the Americas, and then some of them later walked back over the Bering Land Bridge and across Asia to settle in Africa? Kla'quot 09:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
99% there. I'm in the process of reading the sources on evolutionary history and would like to work on that section a little bit. I think I can do this in the next 24 hours. You've done a terrific job on the article. Kla'quot 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
(Outdent) OK, let's go over this. 1. The Cheetah diverged from Puma in the Americas and migrated backwards. The Cougar and Jaguarundi are most closely related to the modern Cheetah. Easy. 2. The Cheetah emerged in the Old World. Puma shares a clade with all of Leopardus, Lynx, Prionailurus, and Felis with divergences after leaving the Old World. The Cougar and Jaguarandi are necessarily more closely related to species of all these genera than to the Cheetah.
Open to correction, but I think these are the two basic possibilities. Who knows. Currently we have "The supposed American origins of the modern Cheetah are thus suspect and its exact relationship to the Cougar remains unresolved," which avoids OR.
I realize my latest version is thicker than Kla'quot's revisions, but I think it more accurate. Perhaps I'll look up one of the sources and see if I can get a response. Marskell 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A few thoughts:
Very interesting stuff. Talk pages are often more interesting than the articles! :-) About the "Did its ancestors walk to the Americas and then walk back" thing above, I'm sure Kla'quot didn't mean it to sound that way, but it sounds like you are asking whether a single specimen walked in a particular direction, when I'm sure talking about population expansion and migrations due to climate changes, or following prey, over millions of years, is a more accurate way of expressing what is happening here, particularly as a generalist species is not as restricted in range as a specialist species. I'd be interested in seeing speculative range maps for species that existed at the time of the Bering land bridge. You would probably get ranges extending all the way across Africa, Eurasia and the Americas. The range of the brown bear is similarly spread across two continents. Carcharoth 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just a quick question: I don't quite understand this sentence: In North America, particularly the United States, panther by itself refers to a Cougar when the context implies a local species, such as the Florida panther population. What is a "local species"? Would it be accurate to say, "In North America, particularly the United States, the term panther is sometimes used to mean Cougar, particularly in reference to the Florida panther"? Kla'quot 05:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have shuffled and abbreviated the Ontario references that were placed in the lead. In expanding this page, over-specifics regarding eastern sightings were removed. The problem is, if we add a specific province or state then someone else would add their province or state and someone else will add theirs and so on. When this goes on the mainpage in a few days I'm sure "I saw it in my backyard"-type info is the first thing that's going to be added; we should avoid this.
Also, I'd say that for Wikipedia's puposes a "confirmed" eastern population exists once a .gov source or an organization like the IUCN says so. Everything else is a "suggested" population. Marskell 09:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm wondering about an unexplained revert of an IP's edits this earlier today: [1]. The reverted edits are certainly good-faith and seem constructive to me. Perhaps others disagree? Can we discuss this? Kla'quot 03:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It needs some explanation for those of us who don't understand the lingo of immunology. Anchoress 02:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Should the word "Cougar" really be capitalized throughout this article? — PHaze 02:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The term "New World" seems to me like a backward term. Why not use "America" or something similar?
The second sentence of this article states that "This large, solitary cat has the greatest range of any terrestrial mammal other than humans in the Western Hemisphere". This has been literally copied from a source but still strikes me as odd. What about the mammals that come with human civilization? Rats, mice, domestic animals?
The Map indicating the range could be updated to include points as far east as Iowa. There have been two pumas captured in the city limits of Omaha (the first at the busiest traffic confluence in the city), and another in Avoca Iowa (after years of local authorities treating reports like Yeti sightings). Both Iowa and Nebraska DNR officials state that wildfires in Montana as well as North and South have forced pumas to migrate along the Missouri River.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Wardo10 (
talk •
contribs).
The article is contradictory on the references here. Or perhaps the sentence got mis-edited, the references say you should not try to stare into a cougars eyes, (you shouldn't do it to a male gorilla either). I think that makes more sense because it lives solitairy. That is why i think it got mis-edited and originally said 'don't stare into it's eyes because it agregates its agression, but i am not sure. At least when you stare into a big territorial predators eyes you should also talk i think, so the animal may aprehend you are awkwardly attempting to communicate (i think most animals would understand when u stared into their eyes pointing a gun at them these days). 77.248.56.242 10:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
An ambush involves lying in wait, whereas stalking involves active pursuit, so this phrase seems self-contradictory. How about "stealthy" instead?-- BillFlis 11:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The section Attacks on humans starts with: "Due to the growth of urban areas, Cougar ranges increasingly overlap with areas inhabited by humans, especially in areas with large populations of deer."
No reference is provided for this statement, and I find it implausible that it is true, because:
Without doubt the expansion of land used by humans is the cause of the increased overlap in habitat, but attributing this to urban areas seems wrong.
-- User:Krator ( t c) 14:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Urban areas do not have large populations of deer.
Cougars do not live in urban areas. If an area becomes urban (the urban areas grow), it is now inhabited by humans, rather than being an overlapping area.
Urbanization...might even have a reverse effect
I am surprised to find no reference to the infamous Kim Bauer-cougar face off in Season 2 of 24 in the mythology and popular culture section. Come on! 210.210.78.151 11:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Do any of the sources used to discuss the range of the Puma explicitly state that it has exceeded that of the Grey Wolf? Maybe a comment on when/why? I suppose they don't necessarily need to, but the current range on the Grey Wolf page looks pretty large, covering all of Canada (10m sqr km) and a significant chunk of Eurasia (which is 54m sqr km). There's no definitive note on the range of the grey wolf either way, but I would like to suggest that the article notes that the Puma's range now exceeds that of the wolf, if it's true. Kayman1uk 12:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I am placed the name panther in the first sentence a number of times only to see it removed without discussion. The name of this cat throughout a large percentage of its range was "Panther" This area encompassed the entire southeastern united states. Photos of panthers killed in Tennessee read "Local panther shot by...." The Carolina Panthers are an example of this use in the Carolinas. In much of Texas and all of Florida this is the only name for these cats. It is used more widely than Puma in the English language and should be in the opening paragraph.
Marskell, I am willing to bet that you live in the Western US. In the Southeast this cat is called a Panther.
Puma is now the accepted genus name and is also the correct general name for this animal. Cougar is a regional name, as is panther, catamount etc. We should move this to puma and redirect cougar.-- Counsel 23:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The World Conservation Union calls them Pumas as well [8]. We should remember that Wikipedia is an international resource.-- Counsel 00:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No matter were you are, or what language you speak Puma concolor' is the name of this animal. That is where the page should be. As far as what to call it in the article, Puma is short for Puma concolor. - Ravedave 01:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose for all of the above reasons. "Cougar" and "Puma" are both in use. Go to the abstracts in the references—two-to-one they use "Cougar." And it has the advantage of being distinct from the genus name. Marskell 03:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Panther was one of the names right? The new Perry High School in Gilbert, AZ has it as their mascot [Puma] and I thought it would've been better as Panther. I know alot of people who're gonna think it's funny. And who decided on Puma anyway?! I hope I'm signing this thing right..I'm new. LadyCakeage
As far as I can see, "cougar" is significantly more popular than "puma" and a bit more popular than "panther". It's a very regional thing, though. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to mention--recently, there have been several reported cougar sightings in our area (we live in western Quebec, very near to Ontario). 206.248.160.186 01:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a little history of the political propositions in California pertaining to mountain lion protection. I remember prop. 117 in the early 1990's concerned mountain lion conservation. How has the mt. lion population in California responded to the 17 odd years of conservation efforts? Has human conflicts with cougars increased during this time? How many mountain lions were killed in California by Dept of Fish and Game since 1990 for human safety reasons? Bugguyak 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the reverts:
OMG. This is truly weird. Cougar is a specific species. The species is a unique entity. It is a proper name. I'm not thumping the lecturn harder—it's simply a fact. Marskell 08:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The capitalization does not bother me as much as having a captive and leashed cougar as the lead photo. It is pathetic and demeans the authenticity of the entire page. Bugguyak 13:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
A quick request, people, if you have to revert each other over this, can you please be more civil in edit summaries? And please do not use the admin rollback tool in a fight over capitalization. Sheesh, this is a lame thing to revert-war over. FWIW I think all-lowercase is better; this basically comes down to prescriptive versus descriptive grammar and I think the descriptive argument is very strong in this case. Kla’quot ( talk | contribs) 19:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey folks, please stop reverting now or I will have to request page protection. Yes, it would be embarassing to everyone involved to have an admin come by and tell everyone they'll have to get to consensus on Talk, so how about stopping the reverting? Kla’quot ( talk | contribs) 03:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is consensus even an issue where when the overwhelming majority of sources comes down firmly on one side? If this was an argument over two contradictory sources that would be one thing, but where we have -- despite UtherSRG's claim above -- no sources on one side and multiple sources on the other, and where the number of multiple sources grows every time someone looks it up again somewhere else, there's no consensus to be reached. We go with what the sources say, and that's the end of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, arguments have been made above; let's try to come to a clear consensus. Opinions from anyone passing by would be much appreciated. You can indicate first and second choices if you like.
(place vote here)
(place vote here)
Statement: per well-established usage in all available sources on scientific and English usage
Well, here is the overview:
+ Capitalized first letter of each word * First letter, first word - Not Capitalized Scientific Organization Situation Reference * Amer. Fish. Soc. * 39 * Amer. Fish. Soc. - 14,15 * Amer. Ornitholog. Union + 9 * Amer. Phytopatholog. Soc. + 8 * Amer. Soc. Ich. Herpetol. - 14,15 * Amer. Soc. Mammalog. + 21 * Assoc. Tropical Lepidoptera + 46 * British Mar. Life Assoc. + Internet (see below) * CephBase * 47 * CITES + Internet (see below) * CMS +/* Internet (see below) * DesertUSA + Internet (see below) * Common Names Plant Dis. + 8 */+ 38 * Entomolog. Soc. Amer. +? 18 - 48 * FDA Seafood List + Internet (see below) * FishBase (ICLARM) * 49 * GRIN - 19 * Herp. League + 44 * Index of Turtles + Internet (see below) * Inst. Food Agricult. Sci. + Internet (see below) * Intern. Whaling Comm. - Internet (see below) * Nat. Plants Database - Internet (see below) * Nevada Sensitive Species + Internet (see below) * N. C. Biological Survey * 50,51 * Odonata of North America + 52,53 * Pherolist - Internet (see below) * Reg. Fish Encyclop. + Internet (see below) * Royal Ontario Museum + Internet (see below) * Soc. Std. Amphib. Rept. - 11 * Soc. Std. Amphib. Rept. + 45 * Species 2000 + Internet (see below) * Universal Virus Database */- 54 * U.S. FDA +/*/- Internet (see below) * W. Aust. Mus. + 55 * The Wildlife Society - 56 etc. (see below)
See http://www.epress.com/w3jbio/vol8/williams/williams.doc -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the list Kim van der Linde, finally someone with actual sources! Unfortunately I have to disagree with how you put your assessment though, "What this shows is that the majority used caps, a minority does not." Actually it shows that the author of paper, Ernest Williams, had to strain and pull from many obscure corners of the internet to pull together support for his pro-capitalization argument.
The list isn't of authoritative sources and a lot of it doesn't have to do with mammals, but it's something to start with. Removed the sources that have to do with insects, virii, plants, reptiles, etc., and removed non-authoritative sources (DesertUSA - "managed by Digital West Media, Inc., a San Diego-based multimedia company", etc.). I've also taken off taxonomic databases and lists of species (CITES, Species 2000, etc), since these aren't references for stylistic considerations in regular writing. Ones that are borderline, I've left. I found at least one mistake, a big one, in that the American Society of Mammologists uses lowercase but was listed as uppercase. Then I also added others that have been investigated.
+ Capitalized first letter of each word * First letter, first word - Not Capitalized Organization Situation * Walker's Mam. of the World - * Amer. Soc. Mammalog. - * Science - * Nature - * The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals - (Edited by Wilson and published by Smithsonian, same as MSW3) * Biodiversity + * Chicago Manual of Style - * Associated Press Stylebook - * Encyclopedia Britannica - * Encarta - * Oxford Dictionary - * Webster's Dictionary - * BBC - * New York Times - * Wikipedia Manual of Style - * British Mar. Life Assoc. + Internet (see below) * CMS +/* Internet (see below) * GRIN - * Intern. Whaling Comm. - Internet (see below) * N. C. Biological Survey * * U.S. FDA +/*/- Internet (see below) * The Wildlife Society -
I agree that this is a topic that should be fought and settled at a higher level.
Done! [15]
That's why there is a dispute and even ruffled feathers here, at least from my part, the page is being continually reverted in a heavy handed way -- even now, incredibly, after being protected and undertaking a vote -- it's being reverted to block lowercase even though that's consensus Wikipedia style, and lowercase is what has been voted to be used.
The WP:BIRD approach to other fauna was not even close to being supported in the discussions in July and August that led to the WP:MOS language. It was recognized that "For specific groups of organisms, there are specific rules of capitalization based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms." The common names of birds are specifically listed as an exception along those lines. Those who want to use uppercase for mammals are the ones that need to show "current and historic usage" supports their views and find consensus at WP:MAM, like how birders got it by showing that authoritative sources of their specific group of organisms. Not a single one of the sources I've looked at that could be plausibly cited as a strong reference has supported uppercase. Maybe the Biodiversity journal. Right now lowercase is Wikipedia consensus style on this topic, and from everything I can find, the consensus is right. Definitely, there is not justification for reverts. Beyazid 03:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is going nowhere. The page gets automatically unprotected, and the same stuff just continues. So, I have protected it for 2 weeks now, maybe that is long enough to resolve things. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that there was a "previous consensus" by the way, there isn't one here or on the only archived talk page for the article. The article was lowercase for better than four years starting from its creation in 2002. The uppercase style has only been enforced with constant reverts and the irrelevant WP:BIRD justification since uppercase was implemented about a year ago without discussion. I can't say I understand what shape a resolution is suppose to look like, other than for the article to meet WP:MOS and go with the consensus on the vote and the large discussion that has already taken place. Beyazid 17:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Umm, I'm pretty sure we've reached a consensus here. Eight established editors have shown support for lowercase versus two for the capitalized form. WP:MOS advises lowercase, sources such as dictionaries show lowercase... what on earth are we looking for to further establish consensus? Consensus has been established (two or three editors notwithstanding). Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not list that cougars are also called Catamounts on the main page? The Catamount page already redirects here but I didn't see where it listed Catamount as one of the names puma concolor goes by, and when I changed it someone changed it back with no reason. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.58.135 ( talk) 15:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've read the above discussion about capitalisation. Regardless of the page protection, would it be acceptable to correct the one instance of capitalised Cheetah to lowercase? This is keep the page consistent, not to favour one or other side in the capitalisation debate. Carcharoth 13:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Please edit Image:Puma range.png and put a range on Michigan which the DNR has admitted that cougars are in Michigan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.151.70 ( talk) 03:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The current article says that cougars kill by suffocating their prey, but there are a few other sources online that suggest that the cat may also kill by breaking the neck and/or by delivering a single crushing bite to the base of the skull. Sources are here, here, here (among others). Maybe this is a minor nitpick, but could a correction be made to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rynoah ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Cut until sourced. Marskell ( talk) 11:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A pumapard is a hybrid animal resulting from a union between a cougar and a leopard. Three sets of these hybrids were bred in the late 1890s and early 1900s by Carl Hagenbeck at his animal park in Hamburg, Germany. Most did not reach adulthood. One of these was purchased in 1898 by Berlin Zoo. A similar hybrid in Berlin Zoo purchased from Carl Hagenbeck was a cross between a male leopard and a female puma. Hamburg Zoo's specimen was the reverse pairing, the one in the black and white photo, fathered by a puma bred to an Indian leopardess. Whether born to a female Puma mated to a male Leopard, or to a male Puma mated to a female Leopard, pumapards inherit a form of dwarfism. Those reported grew to only half the size of the parents. They have a Puma-like long body (proportional to the limbs, but nevertheless shorter than either parent), but short legs. The coat is variously described as sandy, tawny or greyish with brown, chestnut or "faded" rosettes. citation needed
I love pumas so much I don't understand why so many people are starting to hunt it. I must say, how come not a lot of people respect a puma? There are all these people who don't hunt it for meat! They should respect such a beautiful creature. After all, just think how much easier our lives would be if we could live in peace with one!
-- Pumagirl7 ( talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The scientific name for "puma" is Felis Concolor.
UtherSRG is correct. It used to be Felis concolor but what can you say changes happen. The Florida Panther may not be considered a sub-species any more it's been a recent issue because of genetic work that is being done. Mcelite ( talk) 03:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite
Well, no matter what, it's still considered a "Little Cat." The biggest little cat. -- Pumagirl7 ( talk) 22:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.108.184 ( talk) 01:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The moutain lion or cougar which ever you prefer is purely an oppurtunistic predator like all cats. However, it depends on the seasons when it is more active. Also depends on the individual animal. In the summer it is more active at night and in the winter more active in the day. Females with cubs are more active in the day so they can be with the cubs during the night when they are most vunerable. So there you have it. Mcelite ( talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite
I was wondering if there was any way that this article could mention the fact that there have been a number of recent sightings of mountain lions in the Appalachain region, specifically in West Virginia and Virginia. I, myself, saw a mountain lion in a wooded area near Shenandoah national park. There have not been any killed cougars found in the area or anything more concrete, so it's clearly a cryptozoological matter, but it's still worth noting that a large number of persons have claimed to have seen mountain lions/cougars in the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.172.93 ( talk) 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
the BBC said in a recent documentary that "Only a handful of people on Earth have ever seen a wild mountain lion". judging by several sightings comments on this talk page, this sounds like an exaggeration (since i interpret a "handful" as "about 5"), but does anyone know how frequent sightings actually are? 82.6.96.66 ( talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Puma sightings in the wild are extremely rare, but do happen. Because the US has confirmed that pumas are been wiped out of every state except Florida and a handful of Western states, many peoples' puma sightings go undocumented or 'unconfirmed' because if states recognized the sightings, the status of the puma in these states would have too be legally changed. PigeonPiece ( talk) 15:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Extremely rare, eh, I seen two myself, my dad saw one, I know a fair few people who have seen em around. Not that you particularly want to see a cougar around but it does happen from time to time.
TotallyTempo (
talk) 03:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Just checking - aren't the cougar on Vancouver Island a subspecies? That'swhat I thought anyway, doesn't say anything in the article. "Hyas puss-puss" in the title here is one of the Chinook Jargon words for cougar ("big cat"), nto a specific name for the VI variety; another term is swawa7 from St'at'imcets which finds its way into Fraser Canyon English....` Skookum1 ( talk) 18:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Would this be appropriate for the article? -- 165.21.155.8 ( talk) 00:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a quite good field guide, the link to which is attached. It makes the case for the universal name "Puma". Cougar is the trinomial name of the subspecies found only in North America. Puma is the genus name and the most widely used name internationally. http://www.cougarnet.org/Assets/pumafieldguide.pdf -- Counsel ( talk) 21:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't the captions of both of the pictures below say pretty much the same thing (i.e. that cougars are large animals but related to smaller cats)? To me, at least, they seem to convey pretty much the same information. Shouldn't the caption for at least one of these pictures be changed?
-- Kuaichik ( talk) 02:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice that young cougars are referred to in the article as kittens, but I thought that the young of big cats are usually called cubs. Just wondering about that; is "kitten" a term that biologists use, for instance? Cadwaladr ( talk) 21:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This inforamtion may be true but the source is a bit questionable. This guy, TR Mader, borders on original research and apparently represents hunting interests. He is the self-titled director of the Abundant Wildlife Society of North America [22], but this looks like a personal homepage to encourage hunting. If this is the case, his statistics are a bit suspect. If they are true, there should be a more reliable source for them. Bob98133 ( talk) 21:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The article currently claims that the mountain lion is "the largest of the small cats". Is small cat intended here in some technical sense, as the wording would suggest? We have no small cat article, and the big cat article says that mountain lions are sometimes included. It strikes me that the phrase is misleading and I'd like to remove it, but the second sentence would be an awkward beginning to the section, so I thought first I'd ask for expert explanation as to what exactly the claim means. -- Trovatore ( talk) 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the first sentence and the adjacent box have some innuendo. I wished to discuss before editing anything.
Klasicar ( talk) 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)klasicar
Apparently, it is gone... It may have been some weird glitch or whatever. I apologize for raising a ruckus. Klasicar ( talk) 21:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)klasicar
Are these animals being reintroduced into areas they have inhabited before European settling? If so, it should be mentioned and areas where it is happening included. 65.167.146.130 ( talk) 17:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The only place reintroduction is occurring is with the Florida sub-species, but with the North American subspecies this hasn't been done. Mostly because the majority of areas they used to lived are not urban cities with few habitats for them. Mountains lions have been reintroducing themselves actually and from what we know it looks like Illinois is next on the list. Mcelite ( talk) 22:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This is an extremely well-written article-- worthy of praise. The writing is clear, strong and information-rich. I really enjoyed reading it.
Sean7phil 05:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it seems to have been written with reader clarity firmly in mind; an attribute of writing that never fails to impress. user:quantum density
Great article!! One small but important correction please. The Puma was rediscovered in the west of Uruguay in 1997, by the biologist Juan Carlos Rudolf (Faculty of Science, University of Republic, Montevideo) close to Nuevo Berlin, in the Department of Rio Negro. The most recent record (also by Juan Carlos) was in 2006. Yambuldai.
Great! If you have a reference, let us know. Marskell 12:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This sentence in the Taxonomy section strikes me as odd: The Cheetah, after diverging from Puma, migrated backwards. From the context, it implies that the Cheetah species in question is the African Cheetah and not the prehistoric American cheetah. Does this mean that the predecessors to the Cougar migrated from Asia to the Americas, and then some of them later walked back over the Bering Land Bridge and across Asia to settle in Africa? Kla'quot 09:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
99% there. I'm in the process of reading the sources on evolutionary history and would like to work on that section a little bit. I think I can do this in the next 24 hours. You've done a terrific job on the article. Kla'quot 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
(Outdent) OK, let's go over this. 1. The Cheetah diverged from Puma in the Americas and migrated backwards. The Cougar and Jaguarundi are most closely related to the modern Cheetah. Easy. 2. The Cheetah emerged in the Old World. Puma shares a clade with all of Leopardus, Lynx, Prionailurus, and Felis with divergences after leaving the Old World. The Cougar and Jaguarandi are necessarily more closely related to species of all these genera than to the Cheetah.
Open to correction, but I think these are the two basic possibilities. Who knows. Currently we have "The supposed American origins of the modern Cheetah are thus suspect and its exact relationship to the Cougar remains unresolved," which avoids OR.
I realize my latest version is thicker than Kla'quot's revisions, but I think it more accurate. Perhaps I'll look up one of the sources and see if I can get a response. Marskell 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A few thoughts:
Very interesting stuff. Talk pages are often more interesting than the articles! :-) About the "Did its ancestors walk to the Americas and then walk back" thing above, I'm sure Kla'quot didn't mean it to sound that way, but it sounds like you are asking whether a single specimen walked in a particular direction, when I'm sure talking about population expansion and migrations due to climate changes, or following prey, over millions of years, is a more accurate way of expressing what is happening here, particularly as a generalist species is not as restricted in range as a specialist species. I'd be interested in seeing speculative range maps for species that existed at the time of the Bering land bridge. You would probably get ranges extending all the way across Africa, Eurasia and the Americas. The range of the brown bear is similarly spread across two continents. Carcharoth 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just a quick question: I don't quite understand this sentence: In North America, particularly the United States, panther by itself refers to a Cougar when the context implies a local species, such as the Florida panther population. What is a "local species"? Would it be accurate to say, "In North America, particularly the United States, the term panther is sometimes used to mean Cougar, particularly in reference to the Florida panther"? Kla'quot 05:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have shuffled and abbreviated the Ontario references that were placed in the lead. In expanding this page, over-specifics regarding eastern sightings were removed. The problem is, if we add a specific province or state then someone else would add their province or state and someone else will add theirs and so on. When this goes on the mainpage in a few days I'm sure "I saw it in my backyard"-type info is the first thing that's going to be added; we should avoid this.
Also, I'd say that for Wikipedia's puposes a "confirmed" eastern population exists once a .gov source or an organization like the IUCN says so. Everything else is a "suggested" population. Marskell 09:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm wondering about an unexplained revert of an IP's edits this earlier today: [1]. The reverted edits are certainly good-faith and seem constructive to me. Perhaps others disagree? Can we discuss this? Kla'quot 03:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It needs some explanation for those of us who don't understand the lingo of immunology. Anchoress 02:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Should the word "Cougar" really be capitalized throughout this article? — PHaze 02:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The term "New World" seems to me like a backward term. Why not use "America" or something similar?
The second sentence of this article states that "This large, solitary cat has the greatest range of any terrestrial mammal other than humans in the Western Hemisphere". This has been literally copied from a source but still strikes me as odd. What about the mammals that come with human civilization? Rats, mice, domestic animals?
The Map indicating the range could be updated to include points as far east as Iowa. There have been two pumas captured in the city limits of Omaha (the first at the busiest traffic confluence in the city), and another in Avoca Iowa (after years of local authorities treating reports like Yeti sightings). Both Iowa and Nebraska DNR officials state that wildfires in Montana as well as North and South have forced pumas to migrate along the Missouri River.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Wardo10 (
talk •
contribs).
The article is contradictory on the references here. Or perhaps the sentence got mis-edited, the references say you should not try to stare into a cougars eyes, (you shouldn't do it to a male gorilla either). I think that makes more sense because it lives solitairy. That is why i think it got mis-edited and originally said 'don't stare into it's eyes because it agregates its agression, but i am not sure. At least when you stare into a big territorial predators eyes you should also talk i think, so the animal may aprehend you are awkwardly attempting to communicate (i think most animals would understand when u stared into their eyes pointing a gun at them these days). 77.248.56.242 10:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
An ambush involves lying in wait, whereas stalking involves active pursuit, so this phrase seems self-contradictory. How about "stealthy" instead?-- BillFlis 11:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The section Attacks on humans starts with: "Due to the growth of urban areas, Cougar ranges increasingly overlap with areas inhabited by humans, especially in areas with large populations of deer."
No reference is provided for this statement, and I find it implausible that it is true, because:
Without doubt the expansion of land used by humans is the cause of the increased overlap in habitat, but attributing this to urban areas seems wrong.
-- User:Krator ( t c) 14:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Urban areas do not have large populations of deer.
Cougars do not live in urban areas. If an area becomes urban (the urban areas grow), it is now inhabited by humans, rather than being an overlapping area.
Urbanization...might even have a reverse effect
I am surprised to find no reference to the infamous Kim Bauer-cougar face off in Season 2 of 24 in the mythology and popular culture section. Come on! 210.210.78.151 11:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Do any of the sources used to discuss the range of the Puma explicitly state that it has exceeded that of the Grey Wolf? Maybe a comment on when/why? I suppose they don't necessarily need to, but the current range on the Grey Wolf page looks pretty large, covering all of Canada (10m sqr km) and a significant chunk of Eurasia (which is 54m sqr km). There's no definitive note on the range of the grey wolf either way, but I would like to suggest that the article notes that the Puma's range now exceeds that of the wolf, if it's true. Kayman1uk 12:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I am placed the name panther in the first sentence a number of times only to see it removed without discussion. The name of this cat throughout a large percentage of its range was "Panther" This area encompassed the entire southeastern united states. Photos of panthers killed in Tennessee read "Local panther shot by...." The Carolina Panthers are an example of this use in the Carolinas. In much of Texas and all of Florida this is the only name for these cats. It is used more widely than Puma in the English language and should be in the opening paragraph.
Marskell, I am willing to bet that you live in the Western US. In the Southeast this cat is called a Panther.
Puma is now the accepted genus name and is also the correct general name for this animal. Cougar is a regional name, as is panther, catamount etc. We should move this to puma and redirect cougar.-- Counsel 23:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The World Conservation Union calls them Pumas as well [8]. We should remember that Wikipedia is an international resource.-- Counsel 00:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No matter were you are, or what language you speak Puma concolor' is the name of this animal. That is where the page should be. As far as what to call it in the article, Puma is short for Puma concolor. - Ravedave 01:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose for all of the above reasons. "Cougar" and "Puma" are both in use. Go to the abstracts in the references—two-to-one they use "Cougar." And it has the advantage of being distinct from the genus name. Marskell 03:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Panther was one of the names right? The new Perry High School in Gilbert, AZ has it as their mascot [Puma] and I thought it would've been better as Panther. I know alot of people who're gonna think it's funny. And who decided on Puma anyway?! I hope I'm signing this thing right..I'm new. LadyCakeage
As far as I can see, "cougar" is significantly more popular than "puma" and a bit more popular than "panther". It's a very regional thing, though. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to mention--recently, there have been several reported cougar sightings in our area (we live in western Quebec, very near to Ontario). 206.248.160.186 01:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a little history of the political propositions in California pertaining to mountain lion protection. I remember prop. 117 in the early 1990's concerned mountain lion conservation. How has the mt. lion population in California responded to the 17 odd years of conservation efforts? Has human conflicts with cougars increased during this time? How many mountain lions were killed in California by Dept of Fish and Game since 1990 for human safety reasons? Bugguyak 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the reverts:
OMG. This is truly weird. Cougar is a specific species. The species is a unique entity. It is a proper name. I'm not thumping the lecturn harder—it's simply a fact. Marskell 08:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The capitalization does not bother me as much as having a captive and leashed cougar as the lead photo. It is pathetic and demeans the authenticity of the entire page. Bugguyak 13:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
A quick request, people, if you have to revert each other over this, can you please be more civil in edit summaries? And please do not use the admin rollback tool in a fight over capitalization. Sheesh, this is a lame thing to revert-war over. FWIW I think all-lowercase is better; this basically comes down to prescriptive versus descriptive grammar and I think the descriptive argument is very strong in this case. Kla’quot ( talk | contribs) 19:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey folks, please stop reverting now or I will have to request page protection. Yes, it would be embarassing to everyone involved to have an admin come by and tell everyone they'll have to get to consensus on Talk, so how about stopping the reverting? Kla’quot ( talk | contribs) 03:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is consensus even an issue where when the overwhelming majority of sources comes down firmly on one side? If this was an argument over two contradictory sources that would be one thing, but where we have -- despite UtherSRG's claim above -- no sources on one side and multiple sources on the other, and where the number of multiple sources grows every time someone looks it up again somewhere else, there's no consensus to be reached. We go with what the sources say, and that's the end of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, arguments have been made above; let's try to come to a clear consensus. Opinions from anyone passing by would be much appreciated. You can indicate first and second choices if you like.
(place vote here)
(place vote here)
Statement: per well-established usage in all available sources on scientific and English usage
Well, here is the overview:
+ Capitalized first letter of each word * First letter, first word - Not Capitalized Scientific Organization Situation Reference * Amer. Fish. Soc. * 39 * Amer. Fish. Soc. - 14,15 * Amer. Ornitholog. Union + 9 * Amer. Phytopatholog. Soc. + 8 * Amer. Soc. Ich. Herpetol. - 14,15 * Amer. Soc. Mammalog. + 21 * Assoc. Tropical Lepidoptera + 46 * British Mar. Life Assoc. + Internet (see below) * CephBase * 47 * CITES + Internet (see below) * CMS +/* Internet (see below) * DesertUSA + Internet (see below) * Common Names Plant Dis. + 8 */+ 38 * Entomolog. Soc. Amer. +? 18 - 48 * FDA Seafood List + Internet (see below) * FishBase (ICLARM) * 49 * GRIN - 19 * Herp. League + 44 * Index of Turtles + Internet (see below) * Inst. Food Agricult. Sci. + Internet (see below) * Intern. Whaling Comm. - Internet (see below) * Nat. Plants Database - Internet (see below) * Nevada Sensitive Species + Internet (see below) * N. C. Biological Survey * 50,51 * Odonata of North America + 52,53 * Pherolist - Internet (see below) * Reg. Fish Encyclop. + Internet (see below) * Royal Ontario Museum + Internet (see below) * Soc. Std. Amphib. Rept. - 11 * Soc. Std. Amphib. Rept. + 45 * Species 2000 + Internet (see below) * Universal Virus Database */- 54 * U.S. FDA +/*/- Internet (see below) * W. Aust. Mus. + 55 * The Wildlife Society - 56 etc. (see below)
See http://www.epress.com/w3jbio/vol8/williams/williams.doc -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the list Kim van der Linde, finally someone with actual sources! Unfortunately I have to disagree with how you put your assessment though, "What this shows is that the majority used caps, a minority does not." Actually it shows that the author of paper, Ernest Williams, had to strain and pull from many obscure corners of the internet to pull together support for his pro-capitalization argument.
The list isn't of authoritative sources and a lot of it doesn't have to do with mammals, but it's something to start with. Removed the sources that have to do with insects, virii, plants, reptiles, etc., and removed non-authoritative sources (DesertUSA - "managed by Digital West Media, Inc., a San Diego-based multimedia company", etc.). I've also taken off taxonomic databases and lists of species (CITES, Species 2000, etc), since these aren't references for stylistic considerations in regular writing. Ones that are borderline, I've left. I found at least one mistake, a big one, in that the American Society of Mammologists uses lowercase but was listed as uppercase. Then I also added others that have been investigated.
+ Capitalized first letter of each word * First letter, first word - Not Capitalized Organization Situation * Walker's Mam. of the World - * Amer. Soc. Mammalog. - * Science - * Nature - * The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals - (Edited by Wilson and published by Smithsonian, same as MSW3) * Biodiversity + * Chicago Manual of Style - * Associated Press Stylebook - * Encyclopedia Britannica - * Encarta - * Oxford Dictionary - * Webster's Dictionary - * BBC - * New York Times - * Wikipedia Manual of Style - * British Mar. Life Assoc. + Internet (see below) * CMS +/* Internet (see below) * GRIN - * Intern. Whaling Comm. - Internet (see below) * N. C. Biological Survey * * U.S. FDA +/*/- Internet (see below) * The Wildlife Society -
I agree that this is a topic that should be fought and settled at a higher level.
Done! [15]
That's why there is a dispute and even ruffled feathers here, at least from my part, the page is being continually reverted in a heavy handed way -- even now, incredibly, after being protected and undertaking a vote -- it's being reverted to block lowercase even though that's consensus Wikipedia style, and lowercase is what has been voted to be used.
The WP:BIRD approach to other fauna was not even close to being supported in the discussions in July and August that led to the WP:MOS language. It was recognized that "For specific groups of organisms, there are specific rules of capitalization based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms." The common names of birds are specifically listed as an exception along those lines. Those who want to use uppercase for mammals are the ones that need to show "current and historic usage" supports their views and find consensus at WP:MAM, like how birders got it by showing that authoritative sources of their specific group of organisms. Not a single one of the sources I've looked at that could be plausibly cited as a strong reference has supported uppercase. Maybe the Biodiversity journal. Right now lowercase is Wikipedia consensus style on this topic, and from everything I can find, the consensus is right. Definitely, there is not justification for reverts. Beyazid 03:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is going nowhere. The page gets automatically unprotected, and the same stuff just continues. So, I have protected it for 2 weeks now, maybe that is long enough to resolve things. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that there was a "previous consensus" by the way, there isn't one here or on the only archived talk page for the article. The article was lowercase for better than four years starting from its creation in 2002. The uppercase style has only been enforced with constant reverts and the irrelevant WP:BIRD justification since uppercase was implemented about a year ago without discussion. I can't say I understand what shape a resolution is suppose to look like, other than for the article to meet WP:MOS and go with the consensus on the vote and the large discussion that has already taken place. Beyazid 17:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Umm, I'm pretty sure we've reached a consensus here. Eight established editors have shown support for lowercase versus two for the capitalized form. WP:MOS advises lowercase, sources such as dictionaries show lowercase... what on earth are we looking for to further establish consensus? Consensus has been established (two or three editors notwithstanding). Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not list that cougars are also called Catamounts on the main page? The Catamount page already redirects here but I didn't see where it listed Catamount as one of the names puma concolor goes by, and when I changed it someone changed it back with no reason. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.58.135 ( talk) 15:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've read the above discussion about capitalisation. Regardless of the page protection, would it be acceptable to correct the one instance of capitalised Cheetah to lowercase? This is keep the page consistent, not to favour one or other side in the capitalisation debate. Carcharoth 13:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Please edit Image:Puma range.png and put a range on Michigan which the DNR has admitted that cougars are in Michigan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.151.70 ( talk) 03:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The current article says that cougars kill by suffocating their prey, but there are a few other sources online that suggest that the cat may also kill by breaking the neck and/or by delivering a single crushing bite to the base of the skull. Sources are here, here, here (among others). Maybe this is a minor nitpick, but could a correction be made to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rynoah ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Cut until sourced. Marskell ( talk) 11:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A pumapard is a hybrid animal resulting from a union between a cougar and a leopard. Three sets of these hybrids were bred in the late 1890s and early 1900s by Carl Hagenbeck at his animal park in Hamburg, Germany. Most did not reach adulthood. One of these was purchased in 1898 by Berlin Zoo. A similar hybrid in Berlin Zoo purchased from Carl Hagenbeck was a cross between a male leopard and a female puma. Hamburg Zoo's specimen was the reverse pairing, the one in the black and white photo, fathered by a puma bred to an Indian leopardess. Whether born to a female Puma mated to a male Leopard, or to a male Puma mated to a female Leopard, pumapards inherit a form of dwarfism. Those reported grew to only half the size of the parents. They have a Puma-like long body (proportional to the limbs, but nevertheless shorter than either parent), but short legs. The coat is variously described as sandy, tawny or greyish with brown, chestnut or "faded" rosettes. citation needed
I love pumas so much I don't understand why so many people are starting to hunt it. I must say, how come not a lot of people respect a puma? There are all these people who don't hunt it for meat! They should respect such a beautiful creature. After all, just think how much easier our lives would be if we could live in peace with one!
-- Pumagirl7 ( talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The scientific name for "puma" is Felis Concolor.
UtherSRG is correct. It used to be Felis concolor but what can you say changes happen. The Florida Panther may not be considered a sub-species any more it's been a recent issue because of genetic work that is being done. Mcelite ( talk) 03:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite
Well, no matter what, it's still considered a "Little Cat." The biggest little cat. -- Pumagirl7 ( talk) 22:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.108.184 ( talk) 01:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The moutain lion or cougar which ever you prefer is purely an oppurtunistic predator like all cats. However, it depends on the seasons when it is more active. Also depends on the individual animal. In the summer it is more active at night and in the winter more active in the day. Females with cubs are more active in the day so they can be with the cubs during the night when they are most vunerable. So there you have it. Mcelite ( talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite
I was wondering if there was any way that this article could mention the fact that there have been a number of recent sightings of mountain lions in the Appalachain region, specifically in West Virginia and Virginia. I, myself, saw a mountain lion in a wooded area near Shenandoah national park. There have not been any killed cougars found in the area or anything more concrete, so it's clearly a cryptozoological matter, but it's still worth noting that a large number of persons have claimed to have seen mountain lions/cougars in the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.172.93 ( talk) 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
the BBC said in a recent documentary that "Only a handful of people on Earth have ever seen a wild mountain lion". judging by several sightings comments on this talk page, this sounds like an exaggeration (since i interpret a "handful" as "about 5"), but does anyone know how frequent sightings actually are? 82.6.96.66 ( talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Puma sightings in the wild are extremely rare, but do happen. Because the US has confirmed that pumas are been wiped out of every state except Florida and a handful of Western states, many peoples' puma sightings go undocumented or 'unconfirmed' because if states recognized the sightings, the status of the puma in these states would have too be legally changed. PigeonPiece ( talk) 15:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Extremely rare, eh, I seen two myself, my dad saw one, I know a fair few people who have seen em around. Not that you particularly want to see a cougar around but it does happen from time to time.
TotallyTempo (
talk) 03:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Just checking - aren't the cougar on Vancouver Island a subspecies? That'swhat I thought anyway, doesn't say anything in the article. "Hyas puss-puss" in the title here is one of the Chinook Jargon words for cougar ("big cat"), nto a specific name for the VI variety; another term is swawa7 from St'at'imcets which finds its way into Fraser Canyon English....` Skookum1 ( talk) 18:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Would this be appropriate for the article? -- 165.21.155.8 ( talk) 00:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a quite good field guide, the link to which is attached. It makes the case for the universal name "Puma". Cougar is the trinomial name of the subspecies found only in North America. Puma is the genus name and the most widely used name internationally. http://www.cougarnet.org/Assets/pumafieldguide.pdf -- Counsel ( talk) 21:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't the captions of both of the pictures below say pretty much the same thing (i.e. that cougars are large animals but related to smaller cats)? To me, at least, they seem to convey pretty much the same information. Shouldn't the caption for at least one of these pictures be changed?
-- Kuaichik ( talk) 02:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice that young cougars are referred to in the article as kittens, but I thought that the young of big cats are usually called cubs. Just wondering about that; is "kitten" a term that biologists use, for instance? Cadwaladr ( talk) 21:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This inforamtion may be true but the source is a bit questionable. This guy, TR Mader, borders on original research and apparently represents hunting interests. He is the self-titled director of the Abundant Wildlife Society of North America [22], but this looks like a personal homepage to encourage hunting. If this is the case, his statistics are a bit suspect. If they are true, there should be a more reliable source for them. Bob98133 ( talk) 21:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The article currently claims that the mountain lion is "the largest of the small cats". Is small cat intended here in some technical sense, as the wording would suggest? We have no small cat article, and the big cat article says that mountain lions are sometimes included. It strikes me that the phrase is misleading and I'd like to remove it, but the second sentence would be an awkward beginning to the section, so I thought first I'd ask for expert explanation as to what exactly the claim means. -- Trovatore ( talk) 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the first sentence and the adjacent box have some innuendo. I wished to discuss before editing anything.
Klasicar ( talk) 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)klasicar
Apparently, it is gone... It may have been some weird glitch or whatever. I apologize for raising a ruckus. Klasicar ( talk) 21:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)klasicar
Are these animals being reintroduced into areas they have inhabited before European settling? If so, it should be mentioned and areas where it is happening included. 65.167.146.130 ( talk) 17:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The only place reintroduction is occurring is with the Florida sub-species, but with the North American subspecies this hasn't been done. Mostly because the majority of areas they used to lived are not urban cities with few habitats for them. Mountains lions have been reintroducing themselves actually and from what we know it looks like Illinois is next on the list. Mcelite ( talk) 22:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)