Talk:Serval/Archive 1

Untitled
Just wanted to add...some exotics are in fact safer and happier as companion animals rather than in their natural habitat where they are actively hunted for their meat and fur. There is nothing cruel about providing adequate food and shelter for an exotic that has never even lived in the wild in the first place.-ST70.67.228.36 02:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense -- Lycaon 18:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anybody have information on the legalities of serval ownership? The premise behind their outlawing in Nevada, or status in other locales?

A: Servals are legal in the State of Nevada but are outlawed in certain municipalities such as Henderson, NV. There are over a dozen states with complete bans. RastaKins 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Serval Ownership
Big cat rescue wants to ban owning/breeding of exotic cats...by everyone BUT them? http://www.baynews9.com/content/40/2006/3/16/149024.html http://www.bigcatsrescued.com/report1.htm
 * Wiki is not a soapbox. If you are going to make statements about how any exotic animal make terrible pets please provide references from Non-Biased websites and news reports, otherwise it is just unconfirmed speculation. Also remember to sign your posts or they most likely will be ignored --Bschott 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason servals, or any big cat for that matter, should not be kept is that it's cruel -- User:George cowie
 * Says you.--Tapok 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a soapbox


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:


 * 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact. --Bschott 03:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked information on the legalities of Serval ownership, and presumed this might lead to more facts about Servals. I am not looking for personal opinions, or links to web movies from 'causes'. To those that cannot answer the question factually, please don't at all. I am neither looking to purchase one, nor hear from anyone preaching against it. I want to know exactly what the situation is in a neutrally-documented fashion, and this has been one of the very few times Wikipedia didn't already offer that. Thank you. --Choz 03:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can check this page on ExoticCatz for more info about ownership, and perhaps summarize some of that information for inclusion in a separate section of this article to help other people with the same questions. There's a lot of links about exotic cat ownership on that site, although be careful because much of it is likely biased (the site is, of course, owned by a person who owns a serval as a pet, and naturally he is pro-ownership). It might also make more sense to make a separate "Exotic cat (or pet) ownership" page, and link to that from this article, since many of the issues specific to servals likely apply to other exotic cats. --Finiteyoda 02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

pictures
I have a number of very good wild seral pictures that I would be happy to contribute to this page. Any interest?

Profberger 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian Worship?
I can find no reference to the ancient Egyptians worshipping the serval as a god....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.66.117 (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The citation needed tags have been up for a few months, and I still can't find anything. I'm taking out the unsubstantiated portions. Funktapus (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit before I saw this - those links looked a bit promotional to me. I'll have another go at removing it. All the best.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 05:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I ended up removing the whole section - it can go back in when we find sources. I think we will need some actual paper books for this...  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 05:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Correction needed:
"Females defend home ranges of 9.5 to 19.8 square miles (25 to 51 km2), depending on local prey availability, while males defend larger territories of 11.6 to 31.5 square kilometres (4.5 to 12.2 sq mi)."

It says males defend larger areas. We'll use miles for this one. Male servals defend 12.2 sqm, while females defend 19.8 sqm. Either the numbers are reversed of the males actually defend smaller areas. Thank you for your consideration on improving this article. I would do it myself but I do not know the correct information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.155.98 (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks for your warning. Anaxial (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please clean up the introduction
The introduction to this article is really problematic.

"Modern molecular DNA analysis indicates that servals maintain their own unique lineage descending from the same Felid ancestor as the lion."

Obviously each taxon maintains its own unique lineage. That's just fancy verbiage. And obviously it shares a Felid ancestor with lions. But what does that mean? It's not closer to lions than any other Panthera species. This entire sentence should probably go.

"The serval shares common traits with the cheetah, and it is the cheetah which is thought to have descended from ancient servals."

Again, obviously the serval shares traits with the cheetah, but the relevant question is if those traits are not shared with other felids, and then if those traits indicate a close relation between the two species, or just convergent evolution. And what's this "ancient servals" stuff? No, cheetahs are generally believed to be most closely related to pumas, and not particularly close to servals.

I'm just going to take all of the above nonsense out. It doesn't contribute at all to the article, and it's just not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldAsWill (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The reference used in the introduction didn't even support the claims. It's now used as a reference for the correct claim (servals related to golden cats and caracals). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldAsWill (talk • contribs) 04:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Servals in captivity
I cannot add this to the article, as it would be classified as original research. but as of February 2012 there was a cerval in captivity in Melbourne (Australia) zoo, where I saw it. i have photographs to prove it, if anyone would like one.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand. There are servals in zoos all over the world; they don't seem to be unusual in captivity.  Maybe the one you saw is white?  According to the article, those are rare. Richigi (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Lifespan
The discussion of lifespan seems inconsistent -- up to 20 years in captivity vs average 22 years in captivity is contradictory.--Jrm2007 (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Are there any statistics that have been gathered over the past 10 years which may help to establish lifespan?197.221.243.144 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC) maxlittle

Meaning
Ailurius means cat. What does the prefix lept- mean? Please add to the main article. Scottishwildcat12 (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Slender, narrow, fine, slight; originally/literally peeled, threshed, stripped down.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  00:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for adding this, . Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 05:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Subspecies
The statement, "18 subspecies are recognised, though they are sometimes considered to be synonyms for the serval:" is confusing, since all ssp are servals! I have removed the part after the comma. If there is a different intent, someone might like to replace the deleted portion with something more meaningful. It may be the intent was to suggest that some of these ssp might be synonymous with other ssp, I can't say. But as it is it makes no sense. Ptilinopus (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It means some are not considered subspecies, they are instead thought to be mere synonyms for the species. I have readded that part saying "species" not "serval". I hope it is clear now. Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 09:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. Since we are speaking at the subspecies level, to say a trinomial is a synonym for a binomial is incorrect. A taxonomical synonym is always at the same rank. I should think it would be more valid to say some are considered to be synonyms for other subspecies, since all are already considered within the species. To be a synonym for the species would be to imply they are at the binomial level, and with a different specific name, which is considered to be the same species. All these are trinomials. Ptilinopus (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see the difficulty. Works that are referred to in this article, and similar ones, don't explain such things but we need to be clear. I think it is best to remove this part. Unless you can think of some alternative wording... Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 09:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on what we are trying to say. Is it that some ssp are synonyms of other ssp? i.e. There are probably less ssp? Or are we saying that the validity of all ssp is in doubt? In which case the species might become monotypic. I am not clear on the intent. Ptilinopus (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In general the validity of subspecies are doubted, some author or the other will reject a ssp and consider it just another name for the species. See the MSW3 source I just added next to it, the source presents them as ssps as well as synonyms. I think the present wording is the best I can think of, if we can't think anything better then let's keep just "18 subspecies are recognised". Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 05:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be simplest to simply say, "Some subspecies may be synonyms for other subspecies." Ptilinopus (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the present wording, either, since it seems unnecessarily complicated. It's basically saying that there might not be any subspecies of serval at all (since that's the only way they could be "synonyms for the species"), but if that's what you mean why not just say so? However, I am also concerned that neither of the references cited support the claim being made. ITIS, which itself cites MSW3 as its source, lists 18 subspecies, but provides no synonyms for any of them. MSW3 lists 18 subspecies, some of which have synonyms, but none of which are stated to be synonyms of each other. Now, as it happens, I can find a reference supporting the claim "some subspecies [in the article] may be synonyms for others", which is this:, but I can't, at the moment, find one for the claim that the subspecies just don't exist or "the subspecies may be synonyms of the species". Even using the source above, I think it would be easier to phrase it as "some authors recognise less than 18 subspecies", or something along those lines. IMO that would make the intended meaning rather clearer; not all readers will necessarily understand the concept of taxonomic synonymy. Anaxial (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to go with this if agrees as well.  Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 05:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with that. Ptilinopus (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 07:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Cladogram
MandyLynCats (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please explain which rules are being followed for the scientific name in the cladogram - ie when the full genus is used and when an abbreviation is used. eg Caracal aurata v C. aurata. Thank you. --MandyLynCats (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The general rule is the full name is used at first mention, or first mention in a section, chapter etc. and thereafter the genus is shortened to the initial letter and full stop unless there is risk of confusion with another genus or species in which case the full name is used. There is one inconsistency in the cladogram which can be easily rectified.  Velella  Velella Talk 11:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is the rule I am familiar with. Most of them have not had the full name mentioned already, only the genus. The serval has been mentioned previously yet that is in full. MandyLynCats (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In general illustrations should be standalone, so the genus should be spelt out when first used in the cladogram. Also there is the issue of both Catopuma and Caracal both beginning with "Ca". Writing Cat. temminckii and Car. caracal seems awkward, although would follow one common convention.
 * The cladogram had a more important problem, the break in the structure and the placing of Lynx as a terminal taxa. The Lynx branch should have been all other felines (Lynx, Acinonyx, Puma, Felis, etc). I've fixed the break and added the tree for remaining genera.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 13:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That looks better. I see the species have been dropped from the subsequent genera, should they also be dropped from the preceding genera for consistency? ie from Pardofelis and Catopuma. Else Pardofelis marmorata should be in full? Or does 'full name' in the earlier comment refer to the genus full name only and not the species full name ? MandyLynCats (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Have just seen the edit summary "no need to list Leopardus species; listing Catopuma makes sense as it shows the non-close relationship between African and Asian golden cats". Still finding my way around the edit system.
 * So just the query re Pardofelis marmorata in full remains. Then can this cladogram be updated on the Caracal and African golden cat articles perhaps starting the cladogram with subfamily Felinae? MandyLynCats (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that either we list all the species in the Pardofelis-Catopuma clade or none of them. The question is whether it's worth showing that the caracal is more closely related to the African golden cat than the Asian golden cat. It's more relevant to the golden cat and caracal articles than this Serval one. Aesthetically I think it looks better with all species names in full rather than a mix of full and abbreviated. If you have any questions about modifying the cladograms, feel free to ask.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree re showing all the species names in full. Perhaps a consistent approach across all the wild cat species pages could be to start the cladograms with the relevant Subfamily, then list all the genera and only expand the relevant lineage and genera to that cat species. If there is some aspect regarding a relationship to another species - this can just be mentioned in the text with a link to the other species. eg on African golden cat to the Asian golden cat and on Caracal that it was previously grouped with Lynx. Is there a reason Herpailurus is not included in this updated Serval cladogram? I see it is listed on the cladogram on the Felidae page. Which taxonomy is currently being followed or should be followed? I refer to the IUCN Cat Specialist Group publication of 2017 A revised taxonomy of the Felidae MandyLynCats (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No reason other than I forgot that the CSG had kept Herpailurus out of Puma. The cladogram topology is based on Johnson et al (2007) and they used several different taxonomic names, which have generally been updated to follow the CSG but a few slipped through the cracks. The official Project:Mammal recommendation for mammals is still to follow MSW3 unless there is an alternative consensus. Within Felidae the articles generally follow the CSG recommendations, which is the consensus of the most active editors for felids.   Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Википидоры - пидорасы — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.11.206.193 (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)