Talk:Jaguar/Archive 2

Sanskrit?
Can't find this for 'tiger' in Sanskrit. There is puṇḍarīkam "lotus flower", but that's a bit of a stretch. (Though I suppose both could be extensions of the color word pandarah.) kwami (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Relation to Humans
What do people think of adding a relation to humans section, like the one that exists for the Cougar article? This was what I was interested in when reading the article, but I couldn't find it. --24.3.17.238 (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Jaguar vs. Hyaena
Can anyone tell whether Spotted Hyaenas are capable of piercing through the shells of turtles? I think this is the best way of comparing the bite forces of these mammals, if hyenas can't crack turtles open it means it's the jaguars who possess the strongest jaws among mammals. RaduFlorian (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Looks like a little nationalist resentment going on. is both UK and US. It is, for example, the first pron. given by the OED. But is specifically British, and unknown in the US. kwami (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Something close to is indeed given in my (1931) OED.  However, in my experience  is universal in modern British English – if the OED was accurate for British English in 1931 (or before) it is surely out of date now.  Is there a source for modern UK pronunciation?  (Not nationalist – both are clearly right, just different.)


 * Incidentally, shouldn't it be represented as, not ? That /ju/ is unstressed, and I can't make it sound right as a long vowel.  Richard New Forest (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you people trying to rhyme it with car?  The last syllable of jaguar ought to rhyme with "tire" or "higher."216.99.201.102 (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In American dialects it does rhyme with "car". The "/ə/" of the British English pronunciation is the vowel of the "er" in "runner" or the "a" in "mocha" (the "r" is not pronounced in this position in most British accents).  "Higher" perhaps, but only "tire" if you say that as two syllables. I'd say it as one, or with a very much reduced second vowel, so for my southern English accent (roughly RP with hints of Estuary English and southern rural), "tire" (as in "dog-tired") or "tyre" (as on wheel) are shorter than "tyer" (as in a "tyer of knots"), and "tarred" and "tired" are hardly different.  There's no "ought" really though – no accent is "right".  Richard New Forest (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy
Why does the taxonomy section of the jaguar article contains discussion on the position of the snow leopard? This subject is already covered on the Panthera article (or should be included in that article anyway), I don't see the connection with the taxonomy of the jaguar? DaMatriX (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This Uncia thing has been in the article for at least a couple of months... I guess the contributor thought it flowed from the previous discussion of the Panthera members. I agree it's jarring and looks irrelevant; besides, you've got a discussion of the whole snow leopard  Uncia vs. Panthera thing going on at another talk page.  I'm removing the entry; if anyone objects, please weigh in.  Thanks. Seduisant (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How fast do Jaguars run
How fast do jaguars run? I'd have thought this would be mentioned in the Biology section. - ATBS 14Aug09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.25.123 (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright
I've noticed that a lot of this page is actually copied from this web page, particularly in the Etymology, Taxonomy, Biology and behaviour and Ecology sections. These need to be rewritten. Jprulestheworld01 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect it is actually that page that has copied wikipedia please see the footnote at the end of the page. ZooPro (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent death of "last" American jaguar
According to this article, the last known specimen of jaguar in the United States died this week from a kidney failure. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Relative size
This article's introduction claims the jaguar is the third-largest felid after tiger and lion and the largest felid in the Western Hemisphere. But both the body length (6 feet or less) and weight (200 pounds or less) do not exceed those given for the puma in the puma article (8 feet or less, 200 pounds or less). Is the statement incorrect, or are the physical characteristics incorrect as given in one place or the other?

72.37.171.124 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)LINKBook


 * Jaguar is larger, the article states that it measures its (the jaguars) size from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail, unlike the couger article that says it is measured from tip of nose to tip of tail. I will fix this inconsistancy shortly. Zoo  Pro  00:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting
I was wondering why someone kept on deleting my links? Is there something wrong with them? User:snowleopard100 (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that they all clearly fail WP:ELNO. Information should be in the article, not in the link.  Richard New Forest (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree I have removed some links you have placed in other big cat related articles also. Zoo  Pro  01:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Attacks on humans?
I think the following sentence is unclear: "Unlike all other species in the Panthera genus, jaguars very rarely attack humans." Does this mean that all the other Panthera will attack humans on a regular basis but the jaguar will not? Does it mean that other Panthera never attack humans but jaguars do it sometimes? It's hard get an idea of something when it's only defined in terms of what it isn't ;-) --Trolle3000 (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Skull Crushing Jaguars?!
"With prey such as dogs, a paw swipe to crush the skull may be sufficient." Source this, or it gets deleted. I very sincerely doubt a Jaguar has the strength or maneuverability to crush a dog's skull in a single swipe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Depends what dog, I would state it would easily kill a small to medium sized dog. Jaguars have a large amount of strength on their paws it's how they bring down prey. Zoo  Pro  11:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

They bring down prey with both paws and jaws. Changed it to "With prey such as smaller dogs, a paw swipe to the skull may be sufficient in killing it." Until someone sources it properly crushing a dog's skull, I'm calling it as an exaggeration.

Subspecies
"Recent studies have also failed to find evidence for well defined subspecies, and are no longer recognized"

Does that mean the studies or the subspecies are no longer recognised? Rojomoke (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd take it to mean subspecies are no longer recognized. It ought to be reworded. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The statement directly conflicts with well-reffed info in the rest of the para, including the standard WP ref, MSW3, which actually postdates the Walker's Mammals of the World ref. We need to clear this up: if there is scientific consensus, we ought to reflect it; if there is scientific controversy, we ought to explain it.  We can't say two opposing things without explanation.


 * I notice that MSW3, while recognising nine sspp, mentions "Larson 1997" as saying "a multivariate analysis of skull morphology could not discriminate among subspecies". This does not say "there are no sspp", but "the skulls of the sspp are not distinguishable", which is not at all the same thing – there could easily be subspecies which have identical skulls but which can be distinguished in all sorts of other ways.  I wonder if the Mammals of the World ref is derived from Larson, but has been misinterpreted, either in that work itself or by the editor who added the sentence?   Richard New Forest (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * MSW3 is outdated. Molecular studies since MSW3 have resoundingly failed to detect genetic structuring in the species, except for a very few geographical groups. The longer list of subspecies is an artifact because editors cannot let go of them, not based on current supported science. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

New lead image
I propose File:Ounce.PNG as the new image as it has a more natural setting. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Zoo  Pro  11:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I would agree too, because its clearly more natural, but in the source given in Commons for the photo (http://ecoefoto.blogspot.com/2007/03/ona-pintada-o-bicho.html) we can see on it the copyright symbol and the name Guto Bertagnolli, then I think that is not a valid image. --Furado (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Eeeeuagghhhh....change it back, then, and mark the image for deletion. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Restored previous, non-copyrighted image. Maybe another "natural" image can be found.  Nothing wrong with the previous pic anyway.--Seduisant (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was uploaded by the author. It's unlikely someone would claim it as their own and link it to the site of the real author unless they were the same person. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt an author would go to all the trouble of watermarking his photo only to release a cropped version on Wikipedia. Please do not restore the image again. Zoo Pro  02:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this? Aside from the watermark, excellent quality, with a natural background. Or maybe this, except it is partially obscured by a branch. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Both are nice though some what obscured or detracted (the tree stump). I personally would like to see a image of a Jaguar side on with a plain/grass background that is clear and can be resized nicely. I really don't mine either way though. Zoo  Pro  09:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What about a head shot instead like this? Zoo  Pro  09:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer a full body shot. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that. And I think this is the best. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For me there is no doubt, this is the best at present in Commons to use as lead image. --Furado (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would accept either of those as lead image. Zoo  Pro  00:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The file Furado pointed out is so tiny that one cannot see any detail. I added the one I suggested, as everyone agrees it is better than the current lead image. Feel free to point out an even better one. --  T H F S W  (T · C · E) 03:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)