Talk:Leopardus

Guigna
The guigna or kodkod is more frequently identified with Oncofelis guigna (Molina, 1782), not with Leopardus. Of course, Molina was in Italy at that time and worked by memory. Anybody around who can explain what is being disputed with the change in name? --Lupo Manaro 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's what Wozencraft says in MSW3 about Leopardus.
 * "There has been almost unanimous agreement that this group is monophyletic (Bininda-Emonds et al., 1999; Herrington, 1986; Johnson and O'Brien, 1997; Johnson et al., 1998; Mattern and McLennan, 2000; Pocock, 1917a; Salles, 1992; Weigel, 1961). However, the relationships within this genus are unclear. Most recognize wiedii and pardalis as a monophyletic group, however there is considerable controversy on the arrangement of the remaining species. Under phylogenies put forward by some recent genetic and molecular studies, the remaining taxa (guigna, colocolo, jacobitus, tigrinus, geoffroyi) would be paraphyletic if wiedii and pardalis were separated (Collier and O'Brien, 1985; Johnson and O'Brien, 1997; Johnson et al., 1998). All are provisionally included here in Leopardus. García-Perea (1994) revised the pampas cat group and found three clearly distinct allopatric populations. She argued that these populations had been separated for some time and should be considered full species (braccatus, colocolo, and pajeros). Although the distinguishing morphological features she found were in some cases variable, they would fall within the range of differences recognized elsewhere at the species level. I have provisionally followed García-Perea for these endangered populations."
 * On Leopardus guigna:
 * "Placed in Oncifelis by Weigel (1961) and Hemmer (1978). Placed in subgenus Leopardus of Felis by Cabrera (1958)."
 * - UtherSRG (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It says in the text that these cats evolved in South America ten to twelve million years ago. The isthmus of Panama hadn't formed by those times. I find that very hard to believe. Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.193.87.235 (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

L tigrinus
Do the two species of tigrina belong here? http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/25086721 Kortoso (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hybridization
Can they hybridize with any other cats, for example the house cat? 109.159.127.187 (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In the wild, they don't. And I sincerely hope that you won't attempt to catch one for the purpose of breeding with house cat!!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Phylogeny ... what?
"The genus is considered the oldest branch of the part of the cat family to cross into the Americas, followed by the genera Lynx and Puma. (The jaguar is the other extant cat native to the Americas.)" What does that mean? Is that meant to be, "The genus descends from the first cats to cross into the Americas. The general Lynx and Puma descend from later immigrants."? IAmNitpicking (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I agree that it was very unclear, however, and have rephrased the statement with an appropriate reference. Does it make sense now? Anaxial (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Order of listing in species table
Perhaps it is now time to discuss the order in which to present the species in the table and the sorting options. This long-going edit war should stop. The current table uses the order that has long being used in the article, by the authority date. This status quo should be maintained until there is consensus for a change. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jts1882. I fully agree !! – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * When in Dec 2017, User:Cs california converted the earlier list into a table, s/he kept the chronological sequence of scientific descriptions that was already in place long before : i.e. the earliest one followed by later ones. Only when a novice user changed this long accepted chronological sequence by the authority date, I made this table SORTABLE. This parameter provides readers with *4 more ways* to resort the table entries alphabetically. But if the table entries are already pre-sorted alphabetically, it is not possible for a reader to see the chronological sequence of descriptions at first glance; this benefit is lost. I hope, this explanation is simple enough to understand for novice users. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's sortable by common name. Perhaps the scientific name should be moved back to a separate column (as it once was) to allow sorting. The scientific name cells could also show subspecies as there will be space taken by images in the other columns. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With another column, the question of pre-sorting by *authority date* will not be addressed. You are aware of that, aren't you? The parameter 'sortable' allows sorting ONLY alphabetically. – BhagyaMani (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For adding subspecies, I would much prefer to add a column for only images and place subspecies in the same column as common cum scientific names. – BhagyaMani (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The current table allows sorting by common name which has three states: alphabetic, reverse alphabetic and initial (which is by authority date). Sorting by latin name is not possible. My suggestion leaves the current sort options on the first column (including default to sort by authority state) and allows sorting the scientific name. If the common and scientific names are kept together, you can only sort one of them; they need to be split to allow both to be sorted. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 12:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I understand this. But I was under the impression that this novice editor does not understand or not care for 'authority date', whereby you and I mean the year of first description of the taxon. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I see no reason for it not to be ordered by scientific name. It's not like it would add or remove anything in the table. Ddum5347 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We noticed. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Cladogram
Next, I think, this cladogram needs to be supplemented by one based on Li et al. (2016), which slightly differs in estimated divergence times and clades. I can do this, but later this year only. Unless you have time to add this? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

}}
 * Here is the Li et al topology. The labels for the times need fixing. Do their two tigrina samples match the species? —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WOW, that was superfast -- !! I'll fix dates. Well yes, Li et al. differ between Central and South American tigrina, i.e. oncilla L. tigrinus, but as I understand, the SA tigrina is NOT guttulus, as they didn't have any guttulus samples. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please check whether amended dates are correct + in right places. I cannot find any estimate for divergence of SA tigrina, only that it probably diverged later than the CA one. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This one 4.6–1.44 mya can be placed before the split of pampas cat / oncillas. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dates added and checked. They don't give the dates for the "southern" Tigrina/kodkod/GC split in Table S3.
 * I've added a demo of an alternative way of showing the paraphyly of the oncilla. It might be easier to explain.
 * I've had lots of practice with the cladograms so if you need something just ask. I find the thing that really helps is indenting to match the curly brackets and pipes vertically. More compact layouts are harder to read. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 12:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again!!! I know you do have lots of practice and seem to build such cladograms within just a snap. Whatever I know, I learned by looking at cladograms that YOU built. So am a humble apprentice in this regard. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since we used Li et al.'s mitogenome matrix tree in several other pages on cats, I decided to add it here as well. It differs from the one based on their biparental nuclear data. Do you think, it'll be worthwhile to also add latter? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Geographic range
With the edits and counter-edits taking place on this page, I thought maybe I could help take the discussion to the talk page. The ocelot does indeed range into North America. It may be worth pointing out that Mexico is, in fact, in North America (and the ocelot ranges north of Mexico, even if the maps in this article don't make that clear). IAmNitpicking (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)