User talk:BhagyaMani/Archive 8

Check the maps on pages 10 and 13
Hi, the source you provided shows that the nearest population of tigers is not in Melghat Reserve, but the place I mentioned, check the maps in pages 10 and 13. Melghat Reserve is an official place for tigers, but that does not mean that they are only found there, according to Jhala et al. (2008, page 10), otherwise, why did they put that map showing that the range of the tiger extends to where the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh meet, which also includes places where they are reported to be extinct? Leo1pard (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You added Melghat -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asiatic_lion&diff=next&oldid=761535519

. Am glad that this is solved now. --BhagyaMani (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Contiguous population of tigers shared by Myanmar and India
Hi, how come you removed that information on Indochinese tigers in India, when some sources that you know of mention a contiguous population between India and Myanmar, as in, between India and Indochina? Leo1pard (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Read the source : there is no contiguous pop between India and Myanmar. There is a steep mountain range between the northernmost record in Myanmar's Hukawng Valley and the Namdapha area, which is to the north of this mountain range; and no evidence that tigers cross these mountains. As to your assumption of a contiguous pop between India and Indochina: since probably no wild tigers are left in China: which other country do you think could possibly hold a pop that connects the Indian and Indochinese ones? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I did, Jhala et al (2010, Page 151) says "The major source population of tigers in this landscape are in Kaziranga and Pakke in India and dispersing tigers from Bhutan and Myanmar. This landscape holds the largest tiger population in the North-Eastern region consisting of about 125 tigers." Leo1pard (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * They wrote that the forests are contiguous, but did not assume that the tiger pops in India and Myanmar are; nor did they write anything about subspecific status of tigers in this area. Note that Luo et al. (2004) did not have any samples from tigers in Myanmar for their genetic study, but only from some in Thailand, Viet Nam, China and Cambodia. Hence they assumed that tigers in MM might be Indochinese; they might as well not be. But to conclude that there are Indochinese tigers in India is misleading. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Or not contiguous in the border between northeast India and Myanmar, but it is said that some disperse from neighboring Myanmar, and southeast of the Chittagong Hills, the border-area between Bangladesh and Myanmar, which is depicted as being in the range of the Indochinese tiger, is not completely coved by hills or mountains, meaning that tigers can move between the Subcontinent and Indochina in that particular area. Leo1pard (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Tigers in the Chittagong Hills? I suggest you have a look at this map and the resp. legend: http://maps.iucnredlist.org/map.html?id=15955. And re tigers in MM read this: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/136853/0 -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * According to what you provided, they are extinct in that southern region between Bangladesh and Myanmar, but they do point to a continuity of tigers between Namdapha Park and Myanmar, where Hukawng Valley Tiger Reserve is located, especially as the latter reference says "There are few recent records from China (Yunnan province and Medog county, Tibet), where tigers may not be resident and are dependent on trans-boundary conservation areas with India and Myanmar (Kang et al. 2010)," and there are some valleys in that region between Namdapha and Myanmar, including that of Hukawng. Leo1pard (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I know. And am happy that you also realise now that there is no evidence to date that the Namdapha and Hukawng pops are connected. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I meant the border between Bangladesh and Myanmar, not up there. Those guys said that tigers disperse from Myanmar to Northeast India, and I can see some valleys in that area in which movement would be possible for tigers. Leo1pard (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Which area or elevation do you mean by 'up there'? The northernmost pop in MM is in Hukawng valley, i.e. NOT in the mountains between that valley and Namdapha NP, which is on the other side of this mountain range. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * From one of the sources that you provided: http://maps.iucnredlist.org/map.html?id=15955 Leo1pard (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The brown bits, including that 'ring', which is roughly where India, Indochina and China meet. Apart from that, why do they even mention the issue of trans-boundary conservation for the tiger, if it's not the case that some tigers disperse to India from Myanmar? Take the issue of the Asiatic lion, geographically, it is not that far away from Pakistan, but so far, as long as the lion remains in India, is trans-boundary conservation between India and Pakistan important for the lion? Leo1pard (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand with certainty what you mean by the ' brown bits, including that 'ring' '. The yellow-coloured layer in the north-east of this map partly covers Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. The yellow-coloured layer inside the red-white hatched layer to the south covers the Hukawng Valley Tiger Reserve in MM, and the smaller one a little farther southwest the Htamanthi National Park.

Re the Asiatic lion and trans-boundary conservation between India and Pakistan : this remains wishful thinking as long as the several thousand km long chain-link fence along the border is intact. See also Thar Desert and human population there. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Or yellow places. Basically, that area with the yellow color, roughly where India, China and Indochina meet, and yes, for the current situation, trans-boundary conservation for the Asiatic lion, between India and Pakistan, is wishful thinking, it is reasonable to think that the lion is stuck in India, but that's not the case for the tiger, between India and Myanmar. Leo1pard (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Your addition to Nili-Ravi has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * oops, it's been 4 years that I added info to this article, and it has been revised thereafter by a few other editors. Hmm, now the link to Wild Asian Water Buffalo is incorrect. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Madhesi people
Excellent work at Madhesi people, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well you know, this article has been on my watchlist for quite some time, but didn't like what you repeatedly called 'a mess'. When I travelled in the Terai last year, from the far eastern to the far western part, I realised that all this 'Madeshi' fuss is nothing but political. And I think, this aspect of Madeshi being politicized still needs to be worked out in this article. This just served the one purpose : underlining the secessionist demands of some parties. There is no such common Madhesi identity among the many different ethnic groups in the Terai as some of the previous contributors to this article wanted to make believe. My Tharu friends in Chitwan don't consider themselves Madhesi people, but clearly Tharu. And the Maithils I met said they are Maithils. All were equally affected, negatively, by the 'Madhesi uprising' that was instigated by a few but in the name of all Terai peoples. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you happen to have access to a full version of this article : Indian Epics of the Terai Conquest? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nested refs
This is fine by me, but it is perhaps worth mentioning that nested refs are fully accepted in such cases. WP:REFPUNCT (part of MOS), quote: "ref tags are placed before dashes, not after; and where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis." Happy editing, RN1970 (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * what are for? Is the content less important than all the rest before and after the  ? In this particular case : when I added the info about the transfer of the juveniles I thought it important enough for not using . Because it was the first time that permits were issued from both Nepal and France governments, and this transfer was also the start of the first gharial monitoring project in Nepal.  Happy editing too. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Curved brackets/parantheses don't usually indicate less importance. They are used to include an additional point or provide a clarification. In this case it was both; how they arrived in France. If we can locate a source, it is perhaps worth mentioning in the article that it was the first time they allowed a transfer and the start of the Nepal monitoring project. I skimmed the currently provided source (via WP:WAYBACK), but did not see a mention of these important facts. It was kept much earlier in European zoos: mainly 1950s to 70s and London since 1912. However, these were presumably collected in historical times where permits were unnecessary. Regards, RN1970 (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref'ed is currently only Priol (2003), which is the report of the 1st monitoring phase. True is that the subsequent one and the final publication are not yet ref'ed. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

According to the sources we have, yes
There is uncertainty regarding the Mesopotamian lion, because, according to depictions, it had underbelly hair, which would have been present in Barbary and Cape lions in the wilderness, and other lions in captivity, and I did read some interesting descriptions of the European lion, but so far, from the specimens we have, you would be right about the Indian lion being the same subspecies as the Asiatic lion, provided that the Asiatic lion was always a single subspecies, unlike the African lion. Leo1pard (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why using the term 'Indian lion' is potentially confusing; a reader might wonder what the difference is to Asiatic lion. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The revised cat taxonomy doesn't recognise the Asiatic lion as a subspecies. The Indian and Persian lions are both part of the northern lion subspecies (Panthera leo leo; not sure what common name to use), along with the lions of north, west and central Africa, as distinct from the southern lion subspecies (Panthera leo melanochaita), comprising the lions of NE, SE and SW Africa. The lions of North Africa and Asia are a distinct group within the northern species and according to Barnett et al (2016) the lions of India and Iran were the result of separate migrations out of North Africa. This explains any similarities between the Mesopotamian and Barbary lion. Presumably a European lion in the Balkans would be this subspecies too.
 * Sorry if I have missed the point, but I'm not sure where this discussion originated. I came here to add a comment on the Pampas cats and colocolos (see below) and thought I would comment. Jts1882 (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Kirk and the newspaper
Please don't be so gullible to take statements in and references to newspapers and Lairweb for granted!! E.g. long after Javan tiger was declared extinct, there were many claims in Javan newspapers about sightings, but none were substantiated. See also this about questionable sources ! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * These guys from Elsevier referenced Kirk's work. Leo1pard (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Pampas cats and colocolos
BhagyaMani, I was pleased to see your revisions on the Pampas cat/colocolo articles. I was thinking of trying to update those pages for the revised taxonomy so glad to see you have got started. I've updated the taxoboxes to use the subspeciesbox template in the Pampas cat and Pantanal cat articles. But we have a problem because of the species name being either the Pampas cat or colocolo. The colocolo article is mainly about the subspecies. My impression was that Pampas cat was the more widely used name for the whole species, although colocolo is also used. One solution would be a separate article for the species, Leopardus colocolo. Jts1882 (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I'm happy that you are happy! Hmm, I'm not sure how to handle this now. One option is to follow the line of the IUCN assessors who use the English name Pampas Cat for the species Leopardus colocolo. But note that the revision team of the Cat SG commented on the species's name that it should be colocola following Molina's first description. Apart from Sunquist and Sunquist (2009), I don't know a scientific article, in which the English name Colocolo is used, but foremost Pampas Cat, no matter which (sub)species articles were about. In that case and if you and other editors agree, we can revise the article titled Pampas Cat for the species using Leopardus colocola and then use the Colocolo titled one for info about the subspecies in this particular region of central Chile. ?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems like the best plan to me. I haven't been able to find an online version Cat News special edition with the text on the revised taxonomy, so have had to make do with the listing. Have you seen it? Jts1882 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have seen it, but it's not (yet) available online as pdf, only the pages 76-77 with the overview of changes. The other noteworthy changes are the grouping of all mainland tiger subspecies to P. t. tigris and of the 3 sundaland subspecies to P. t. sondaica; and the split of leopard cat that was in the pipeline for quite some time: into mainland bengalensis and sundaland javanensis. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of those were expected. The big surprise, and one I want to see the reasoning for, is the splitting of the wildcat complex into the four species. A lot of the changes were consolidation (especially of subspecies), unless there was a clear geographical divide, and this seems against the trend. It probably means we haven't seem the last word on the Pampas cats and other Leopardus species.
 * Anyway, I've made a start on generalising the Pampas cat article to make it inclusive of the colocolo and Pantanal cat. Jts1882 (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Saw your changes : good job!! Surprising also that they omitted the Persian leopard as subspecies, neither ciscaucasica nor saxicolor is listed. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC) This might be under tulliana now. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume the subspecies is still recognised but since it includes the Anatolian leopard has been renamed. P. p. tulliana (Valenciennes, 1856)] is the senior synonym. Jts1882 (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Madhesi people
Why are you removing the verified indian reference on Madhesi page and claiming them as Indians. Cant you see Indian embassy statement whether they are Nepali origin or not? (27.34.19.43 (talk))
 * I do NOT state that they are Indians! I only state that they are of INDIAN ORIGIN, with reference to reliable sources. Read what a reliable source is!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

They are even not the people of Indian origin. The statements issued by Indian embassay in Nepal and Nepalese ambassador in Nepal are the most reliable sources upto date. The Madhesi marries people of Indian origin across the border that does not mean they are Indian origin one. If they are not Indians, why you even deleted the line "Madhesi are the Nepali people of Indian origin". Those Madhesi people are already suppressed in Nepal and challenged on their Nepali nationality and loyalty by hill elites. Most of the madhesi people are natives of Madhesh and while only 3 million Indian origin people that have maritial relations with native madhesis became Nepali citizen by naturalization. While some madhesis have Indian origin due to mass immigrationin 2007 had Indian origin, not all the madhesis are of Indian origin. The ruling hill elites Bahun and Chhetri are even the migrants from India and not older than the native Madhesis. But they are also not the people of Indian origin. (27.34.50.168 (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC))

Your statements lead to more question:
 * What is your understanding of origin?
 * Where is this country 'Madhesh' supposed to be? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

reference on wetlands definition
Hello fellow editing user Why would you use Cornell Law School as a reference for the US Government Publishing Office when you could use the US Government Publishing Office itself as reference. The whole meaning of citation is to attribute to the original source. Especially talking about legislation. Cornell Law School webpage is the first to pop up on google search, whereas finding the actual source takes a bit more time and effort. Therefore, citing the US GPO helps the reader in two ways. --MariaPol (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)MariaPol
 * Note that I did reference the US GPO as author! If you don't like the Cornell Law School being used as publisher then why don't you change this link to the online version of a different publisher? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC).

There is a leopard in the photograph
Hi, can't you see the yellow and white fur with rosettes in the middle of the picture? Leo1pard (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I did see it. But this pic is so bad that it cannot be seen in a thumb. And it's the same subspecies than elsewhere in Africa. So what's the point of showing a bad pic of an individual in a cage? BhagyaMani (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Like those photographs for the bigfoot. Leo1pard (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

recent change to hispid hare page
I notice you have recently reverted my changes in the hispid hare page. I have permission by Quinton Feldberg, a user with many privileges. please could you add this information back. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddien03 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you don't! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

revised taxonomy
Isn't that strange that the revised taxonomy stirs up so many more people than any other publication about cats? Remarkable is that these two in particular do not even understand anything much about taxonomy. The latest who thinks his ideas about IUCN vs ITIS are relevant, is a rather 'new kid on the block'. S/he did so far not even contribute to any other cat article apart from the Tiger and Siberian tiger ones. Therefore I suggest lets not get too impressed by their opinions. Let me know what you think. Cheers -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Water buffalo and ICZN Opinion 2027
Hi BhagyaMani, the water buffalo is considered a descendant of the wild water buffalo; as you said in your edit summary: read the taxonomic history. The name for the domesticated form however was published in 1758 as Bos bubalis by Linnaeus, while the name of the wild form was published as Bos arnee by Robert Kerr only in 1792. This lead to difficulties when the two taxa were considered conspecific (which is a valid assumption, considering one is a domesticated form of the other). If two taxa are considered conspecific, then, according to the rules of then ICZN-Code, they should have the same specific name. In 1993, Wilson & Reeder indeed treated the wild form (meanwhile Bubalus arnee for some time) as a subspecies of the domestic form (Bubalus bubalis), so they had Bubalus bubalis arnee and Bubalus bubalis bubalis. For the majority of zoologists, this was unacceptable, and Anthea Gentry, Juliet Clutton-Brock and Colin Groves applied for conservation of the names of the wild forms with the "International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature". The application was successful, and in 2003 the commission ruled that 17 until then junior synonyms were conserved against their until then senior synonyms.

If two taxa are considered conspecific, then they should have the same name. So we now have Canis lupus lupus and Canis lupus familiaris, Equus ferus ferus and Equus ferus caballus, Camelus ferus ferus and Camelus ferus bactrianus. The same applies for the wild water buffalo and the water buffalo: Bubalus arnee arnee (Kerr, 1792 ) and Bubalus arnee bubalis (Linnaeus, 1758 ), unless they are not considered conspecific. I have to remind you that Opinion 2027 is considered an extension to the zoological Code, and as such has to be applied for names that are governed by that Code. The 2004 article by Gentry, Clutton-Brock and Groves, which is cited in the taxonomic history of water buffalo, has no such standing. It is a very strange position to take up to treat the domestic form of one species as a different species, although it is not prohibited.

When I first encountered the article on the water buffalo, I found this. Have a good look at the taxobox. It stated the species as Bubalus arnee but with the wrong author: Linnaeus, instead of Kerr, and under it two subspecies were listed, but the typical subspecies, Bubalus arnee arnee, was nowhere to be found. So someone had definitely taken up the position that the water buffalo is a subspecies of the wild water buffalo, but nomenclaturally it was a great mess, only leading to a lot of confusion. So I cleaned it up, stating in my edit summary that under these conditions, the two articles should better be merged.

I don't think that apart from Gentry et al. (2004) you will find much support nowadays for your treatment of the water buffalo as a species in its own right. I guess the wise thing to do here is to split the article into one on the river buffalo and another on the swamp buffalo, if they are considered two distinct subspecies, like the names suggested. Then replace the speciesboxes by subspeciesboxes, mention Bubalus arnee as the species, with the correct author, and give the trinomina Bubalus arnee bubalis and Bubalus arnee carabanesis respectively in the two articles. Or you stick to one article on the waterbuffalo, giving only the bubalis trinomen, and treat the swamp buffalo as a form. Reverting everything to Bubalus bubalis was, in my opinion, an unwise thing to do.

Oh, and since you put the river buffalo and the swamp buffalo under "type", this raises some real questions whether or not you have enough expert knowledge to decide on nomenclatural problems like this one. A taxon can have only one type: in case of a species or a subspecies, it is one specimen (or, in case of very old names, it can also be one illustration). It was really a bad idea to put two forms or subspecies under "type" in the taxobox. Wiki klaas   21:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Since Gentry et al. (2004) several authors published about the *domestic water buffalo* using Bubalus bubalis, see e.g. Kumar et al. (2017). There are at least 50 articles published in 2017 on Bubalus bubalis, all authors referring to the domestic water buffalo. Whereas wild water buffalo is referred to as Bubalus arnee by IUCN Red List assessors (2008) and subsequent authors writing about the wild species. Note that I don't claim 'expert knowledge', but merely reference publications by experts. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Eeeeehm, of course the IUCN Red List refers to Bubalus arnee when they discuss the conservation status of the wild water buffalo. What would you expect them to do? Negate the Code? Besides, IUCN is not a taxonomic institution, it's a conservation society.
 * It would have been nice if you would have chosen a taxonomic paper in which the name Bubalus bubalis is mentioned, to stake your claim. I would not check Kumar et al. or any other author reporting on physiology, if I wanted to check the current custom regarding the taxonomic status of the water buffalo.  Wiki  klaas   22:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Look, I'm not at all interested to discuss this controversially with you. So I suggest: if you find any peer-reviewed article whose authors challenge or even oppose Gentry et al. (2004), or any *after* 2004 that use Bubalus arnee for the domestic form, then just add it to the section on taxonomic history. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You asked for one. Here's at least Mammal species of the World, ed. 3 (2005), where Wilson & Reeder treat arnee and bubalis as subspecies of the same species. Only they do not adhere to Opinion 2027, and list all subspecies under Bubalus bubalis, which is an error to be corrected in the light of the current Code and body of Opinions, but at least these taxonomists treat the water buffalo as a subspecies, and conspecific with the wild form (here's the relevant page in their book). Then there's Mario Melletti & James Burton (2014). Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour of Wild Cattle: 55. In both cases the authors at least make a deliberate decision on the names to use, so quite different from Kumar, who just wanted to put some name there. To find a challenge is quite something else as there is not much to be challenged.
 * Also you may not be interested to discuss this, but it was you who had some very strong opinions on the edit I made in the article water buffalo, and now I challenge that, it appears that 1) you have no expert knowledge (not knowing what a type is, and citing a random google or pubmed or whatever other search result to stake your claim, not even taking notice if your result was by a taxonomist at all), and 2) you do not wish to discuss your action. If you don't want to discuss your reverts, then do not revert good faith edits.  Wiki  klaas   13:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe you misunderstood me : I did NOT ask you for anything, but suggested you add it, if you find one. I don't see a need to discuss this controversially. But if you think it necessary, use the article's talk page so to include others as well. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Leopard cat
What are you doing? Are you unable to recognize a test edit, or are you intentionally trying to be deceptive? If you keep reverting content changes with a devious or clueless edit summary (and making mistakes to boot, like "The leopard cats is," I'll ask an administrator to stop the situation. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The leopard cat is a species, hence singular! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

request for consideration of the updated data
Pliz do not revert the data without considering anything. I provided relevant referance. Wikipedia is not to be controlled under monopoly, it is meant to be upgraded for global use as encyclopedia. Dr.sunil kumar leishangthem (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A newspaper article is NOT a reliable reference for data. I suggest you read this Identifying reliable sources to learn what a reliable source is, and this Citing sources to learn how to cite such a source. — BhagyaMani (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Panthera tigris
Hello. I saw that you reverted my edits of different tiger subspecies. I noticed you provided a link to support the notion that the different subspecies use Panthera tigris tigris. I have not seen any sources backing this, particularly the cited source, which is an expert without any context. Can you provide any sources on using tigris tigris for the different subspecies? I would like to know if that is indeed the correct nomenclature. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this. Thanks. DrRC (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Following the taxonomic revision of the Felidae by the Cat Classification Taskforce of the Cat Specialist Group, only 2 tiger subspecies are now recognized as valid taxa: namely P. t. tigris in mainland Asia and P. t. sondaica in the Sunda Islands. Just have a look at the downloadable reference provided in the resp. articles, in particular page 76, 1st column. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Added some more background info. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see. Thanks for the references. DrRC (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)