User talk:BhagyaMani/Archive 3

Regarding : Naja atra

Please do not edit Naja atra with your own original research. You changed the intro from "...found mostly in southern China and a couple of neighboring nations and islands" into "...as it is native to southern China and Taiwan." That makes little sense and I see you have very limited knowledge on this subject. The snake is called the "Chinese cobra" WORLDWIDE, even in Taiwan, this is what it is called. All the references that were attached to it refer to it as the "Chinese cobra" - this is what it is called by laymen and experts. The snake is mostly found in China, but it is also found in limited numbers in N. Laos, N. Vietnam, Taiwan, and other very small islands in the area. Naja atra is predominantly found in southern China, where it is extremely common. Then you also took the section "Etymology" all the way to the end - this is not how we do things in Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. We always put etymology section first. Bastian (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

An example is this here. It is a Taiwanese website, which still call it the Chinese cobra. Bastian (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't come here and bring me one "study" calling the snake "Taiwan cobra" and claim that that is as common as "Chinese cobra". This species is called the "Chinese cobra" in every language there is. Even in Taiwan it is called the "Chinese cobra". This has been so since the species was first described. You are making destructive edits to the intro of the article as all sources call the species "Chinese cobra". Please don't pretend to know like you know anything about this species, its history, and what it is or isn't called. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. There also seems to be a stench of politics to your stance. Leave politics out of science please. This is the "Chinese cobra" to billions of people across the world. It is NOT the "Taiwan cobra". We might aswell call it the "Laos cobra" or the "Northern Vietnam cobra". If you continue to make the destructive edits, I will have to report you for edit warring. Get a grip. Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 17:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This debate is continued in Talk:Naja atra -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What "genus" means

As you probably know, assigning a cat to a separate genus is saying that it's substantially different from all other types of cat. It's the same thing. The only difference is to speak in layman's terms. Chrisrus (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Asiatic_Wildcat

Re:Asiatic_Wildcat

Please reply on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animals#IUCN_status_-_species_and_subspecies Bulwersator (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"Amur Leopard Cat"

Hello again, and thanks for all your recent work on the felid articles! I removed the word "Amur" from the LC article after reading this:

The p.b.euptilura Leopard Cat has been confused with the "Amur Leopard" panthera pardus orientalis, a completely different, large, and very endangered species of its own. This has lead to p.b.euptilura being mistakenly called an "Amur Leopard Cat" and has even lead to people confusing the two species scientific names calling them "p.b. euptilura", "p.b.orientalis" a completely made up subspecies name that does not exist in Leopard Cats. (Emphasis mine.)

The confusion started because these two completely different species of felines both live in the Amurian river region of Russia and while doing research, people have confused the two different species with one another. Unfortunately, this has lead to a lot of false information being published about p.b.euptilura sub-species and has put all their publications and reaserch in the wild in question.

P.b. euptilura is a recognized non endangered subspecies of "Leopard Cat" and the "Amur Leopard" panthera pardus orientalis is a large very endangered species, the two should never be confused with one another. Unfortunately, because of the confusion, many people have published on websites that p.b.euptilura is endangered, when actually p.b. euptilura is one of the most populated subspecies with the largest known range of the Leopard Cat species. There range starts as far south as Korea and expands up through a large part of eastern China where they are commonly called Asian Leopard Cats, then north throughout the Amurian River region and may be found as far north as eastern Siberia.

This is from the Leopard Cat Foundation website; perhaps they are mistaken. Please let me know your opinion on this. Regards as always, --Seduisant (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Seduisant! The cat's name initially used by Geptner and his Russian colleagues was Amur cat not Amur leopard cat. So I have changed this in the section accordingly and added the scientific name, hoping this will resolve any confusion. What do you think ? Regards -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

neofelid vs clouded leopard

The referents of these two terms seem to be the same, but the referent of the latter article differs by one species, also called "clouded leopard". Is this correct and if so, why? Chrisrus (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The term Neofelis refers to the genus comprising two species, namely the clouded leopard (of Asia mainland) and the Sunda clouded leopard (of Sumatra and Borneo). The word neofelid has not been used in connection with the genus nor with either species in any scientific publication that I am aware of. Does this answer your question ? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there imperfect overlap between the referents of the English term "clouded leopard" and the taxon "neofelis"? Chrisrus (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Rossami says "Neofelid is a legitimate grammatical construction for the adjectival form of Neofelis. An exact google search for neofelid returns a number of legitimate uses including this, this, this and this. By the way, I have not yet been able to verify the content in that last link but if true, it suggests that a retarget to Machairodontinae may be even better." Chrisrus (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: title in your first link: '(Neofelid nabulosa)' is clearly a misspelling. Looks to me as if the Chinese authors have used the services of a translator who didn't know the correct Latin words. The other 3 ext links you listed are not scientific publications. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You can reply to [[User:Rossami] over here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Neofelid. I can't speak for him. This place might be a good one to reply to my last question to you. Chrisrus (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wildcat

I must ask you to read the article's talk page. Although we appreciate your efforts, there are some who are confused over your replacing of sources. Mariomassone (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Bagheera baghira and the Jungle Cat page

Hi Bhagya, good to see you back again. Just to let you know, I've left a note on Bagheera's talke page about edit warring, and suggested he/she take his/her dispute to the article's Talk page. Cheers, --Seduisant (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Seduisant !! In case Bagheera keeps on insisting, I have compiled the sparse available info about maimanah, and am sure that s/he misunderstood the German texts that he keeps on referring to. Scully indeed suggested in 1887 that this particular skin is of Felis caudata, but also wrote that he is not sure as he didn't have caudata skins for comparison. Zukowsky had, and clearly stated that the Maimanah skin is larger in head and body than of caudata but with a shorter tail. Therefore, Ellerman and Morrison-Scott subordinated this one to Felis chaus already in their first (1949) issue of the Checklist, which has NOT been questioned ever since. But I suppose that this info is too specific to be placed in a new "Taxonomy" section of the article yet. -- Cheers, BhagyaMani (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)