Talk:Cougar/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Cougar shot and Killed in Georgia in 2008

A cougar was shot and killed in Georgia in Troup county back in 2008. Because the cat was well fed and lacked parasites, many believed it to be an escaped captive. DNA evidence linked it to the south florida panther population. Not a protected species in Georgia, he reported his kill to the state. After DNA confirmed it was a florida panther, which are protected under federal law, the hunter was fined. This proves that not only are western cougars moving east, florida panthers are also moving north. This can be a perfect addition to range and distribution. here is my cite

There is also plenty of other websites to back up my sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgn.abbott (talk • contribs) 15:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC) http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2009/08/05/798764/dna-links-cougar-killed-in-georgias.html

Concerning the potential accuracy of the Northeastern portions of historic range on the new map

Although I am no expert (currently only an amateur biologist), it struck me as rather odd that places like the Upper Great Lakes area are shown to have their Cougar populations extirpated, when, as far as I know (feel free to correct me if I am wrong), the native Gray Wolf population was never driven to extinction. I find this rather odd when you consider things such as the fact that Cougars survived extirpation in the parts of their range less ideal for human habitation (I.E. the Western Mountains and the dense swamps of Southern Florida), whereas the larger-ranging and more confrontational wolves were driven to extinction much more easily due to their lesser ability to deal with pressures from humans. This makes me ponder whether they ever even lived in this area, as it seems unlikely that Cougars would be extirpated before Gray Wolves when this was clearly not the case over much of the West. The Black Bear is a similar "medium-large" predator that was more adept at dealing with persecution, much like the Cougar, that has a similar Western range. However, unlike the Cougar, it still also retains a patchy Northeastern range that includes much of the more remote places in the Northeast, such as the Appalachian Mountains, the Upper Great Lakes, and Northern New England. This leads me to speculate why the highly adaptable Cougar couldn't find similar refuges in its Northeastern range. What is there to say that these Northeastern Cougars, historically sighted, were not simply transient males (as the modern "Northeastern" Cougars have been shown to be, according to the information presented) and much of this former Northeastern rangemap simply shows the areas where the transient males were sighted historically? Of course, since the Gray Wolf has also been extirpated in most of these places, those speculations are far shakier than my first ones. In addition, as the Black Bear is far less predatory, it was likely not as heavily persecuted as a livestock-killer. Still, I feel these speculations are worth a mention, so people with the resources might examine his map a little more thoroughly to confirm its absolute veracity. Fishcatch22 (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So you wonder why wolves persisted in the great lakes region when cougars didn't, I can understand that. What I don't understand is how someone is supposed to examine a map of current range and answer your speculation about historic extirpation. I applaud your curiosity. Rather than waiting on someone else, why don't you read more about each species and find out how they differ? It's not so surprising to me that my first assumption was that old data was wrong. First, wolves are not larger than cougars, second I wouldn't say wolves were more 'confrontational' (they didn't fight back more). I don't know the answer, but think about habitat, geography, how the species hunt, home range sizes, etc. Wolves live in groups whereas cougars are solitary (you'd have to kill more wolves to eradicate them), third, where there are a lot of moose, the deer density is lower, so perhaps the great lakes region had lower than average cougar density (wolf packs can hunt adult moose, but I don't think cougars can). Since wolves run prey down rather than pounce, I'd say they can't use the high western mountains as refugia as cougars did, which is why cougars persisted in the west. Seminole Indians had a big part in keeping white settlers out of S. Florida. my 2 cents. --Paddling bear (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

By more confrontational, I meant that they are, generally speaking, always apex predators wherever they are found, and therefore more likely to have to confront humans harvesting prey they normally do by stealing livestock. Thus, they are less tolerant of humans suppressing their numbers. Cougars were not one of the absolute apex predators in most of their range- They have either had to live with wolves (in North America) or Jaguars (in most of Latin America), depressing their numbers and limiting their prey to smaller-sized animals than the usual prey of those predators. Also, from what I've seen of historical accounts, the pack nature of wolves makes them easier to extirpate- since most of the wolves live in close proximity to one another and a wolf pack can have a range consisting of many miles, one poisoned carcass placed near known wolf haunts (poisoning has been one of the most historically popular way of eliminating wolf packs) could kill an entire pack easily, clearing that very large area of wolves. Due to the fierce territoriality of wolf packs, it would have likely been a while until the area was fully repopulated by a new wolf pack. Cougars have a different social structure that limits the effectiveness of that strategy; since they are solitary and do not often feed on carrion, a poisoned carcass will not necessarily eliminate all the cougars in a given large area, meaning they have to be killed by the more difficult tracking-and-shooting method. Also, only male cougars are vigorously territorial with one another; the smaller territories of female cougars often overlap, with one larger male territory also overlapping the surrounding female ones. Since they are not as fiercely territorial (outside of male-male confrontations), they would likely repopulate areas adjacent to established populations quicker. You do have a point about the higher moose populations, though, as the place cougars tend to stop appearing in the west is also the range at which deer start to become less abundant and larger, more difficult to kill boreal ungulates become common. A cougar can kill an adult moose, but it is much more difficult and more likely to fail at doing so than killing a deer. I wouldn't mind doing my own research, but its a little difficult unless you're involved in the higher academic world like that- I wouldn't know where to start, unfortunately. (P.S.: saying they were larger was a mistyping on my part, I meant to say "larger-ranging", referring to their home ranges).Fishcatch22 (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is the evidence they can leap 40 feet or jump 18 feet vertically?

"An exceptional vertical leap of 5.4 m (18 ft) is reported for the cougar.[42] Horizontal jumping capability from standing position is suggested anywhere from 6 to 12 m (20 to 40 ft)." I've searched all over and I can see these claims repeated a lot, but I can find no evidence, no videos, no data, indicating these fantastic claims are true. It would be amazing to see a cougar jump 40 feet and make a great video, but sorry, I think someone said it looked like they jumped 40 feet and everyone else picked this up as fact. I hope someone can prove me wrong, but watching videos of cougars, I haven't seen them leap more than 10 feet.Thoralor (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's in the "Fun Facts" (left margin) in the cited reference from the San Diego Zoo. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"Fun Facts" are not evidence--they're part of the problem when they are just repeats of something other people have written or made up. They're not the only ones--it's written all over the net without any evidence I can find. Maybe I should say scientific evidence or video proof.Thoralor (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the reference cited. If you have a better reference, we can replace it with more accurate information. What we can't do is measure ourselves, see WP:OR. I've reverted your deletion. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Who's to say that the writer of the "Fun Facts" on the San Diego Zoo website and the person who wrote the information are not one in the same, making that original research. I'm a science writer and could easily post the information on one of the sites I edit and then cite it. All I'm interested in is factual information, and there is no evidence cougars can leap 40 feet or jump 18 feet vertically. It would be fantastic if they could. I see no point in posting unverifiable facts, but apparently you do.Thoralor (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It is what it is. The source of the comment is well-documented (San Diego Zoo web page). The reliability is as good as the source. If you put up a blog that says something else, it will probably be viewed as less reliable than a professional zoological society which puts its name behind the their statements. The key point - Wikipedia is not itself reliable. Wikipedia is a tertiary reference. It points to what other publications say on the subject, the reliability of the statements can be judged only by judging the sources. If you have an alternative source for a statement, which has been published, the reliability of that source will be judged in comparison to the existing source. If they are roughly comparable, the article will probably mention a range indicating disparate sources provide conflicting statements. But the one thing we as Wikipedia editors don't do (again, see WP:OR ) is go out and measure for ourselves.

If you want to change that statement in the article, you can challenge the San Diego Zoo themselves and get the original reference fixed, or you can find someone else who has published a statement which conflicts with this. The mere fact that you know its false doesn't give you authority to change the Wikipedia article - you have to have a reference from a reliable source. That's a stake in the ground because too many people "know" things that simply aren't the case. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The San Diego Fun Facts have been changed to "• Mountain lions can jump 18 feet (5.5 meters) from the ground into a tree, and they have been known to jump 20 feet (6.1 meters) up or down a hillside." I still dispute the 18 feet into a tree unless the 18 feet includes some climbing thrusts, but at least the 40-foot horizontal jump has been changed to "20 feet up or down a hillside," though I would delete the "up."

With statements that do not even make sense like "Height at which its hind legs can propel it forward: 30 feet" the Canadian Geographic site is unreliable as a source. Is there a blacklist for sources?Thoralor (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the canadian geographic reference is unreliable. Height at which its hind legs can propel it forward? What? That sounds stupid, and it literally means that the cat's limbs can only propel it forward if the cat is standing at an elevation(or height) of 30 feet. Plain stupidity. Can someone find a reliable source please? <</ref>

Here's what the current "Fun Facts" says, if that's to be used as the reference. They have modified it to be more believable: "Mountain lions can jump 18 feet (5.5 meters) from the ground into a tree, and they have been known to jump 20 feet (6.1 meters) up or down a hillside. That’s the height of many two-story buildings!"

That is very different to the article's "This physique allows it great leaping and short-sprint ability. The cougar is able to leap as high as 5.5 m (18 ft) in one bound, and as far as 40 to 45 ft horizontally." but I can't be bothered changing it again. Someone apparently thinks it's fun to tell people a cougar can fly 45 feet through the air like SuperCougar, lol.Thoralor (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Guy, a bunch of references are given in that section. Not just the fun facts website. And why is a long jump of 45 feet unbelievable? Did you know the human world record for the long jump is about 30 feet? Its on video. Its not incredible that a wild animal that is much more adept at jumping than humans can jump 45 feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.247.12 (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Range is bigger than written here

There is a need to fix the map and work more on the fact that the cougars have re populated eastern america. Although no dead body or picture of such animal has been made, there have been DNA samples collected from Lynx mating sites in Québec that confirmed the presence of cougar in the center-east part of the province, notably the Appalachian mountains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.144.106 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only is the range wrong, but the claim that the cougar has more range than the coyote is false. The coyote has the biggest range of any mammal period, and that is well documented. Excluding humans, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.188.154.180 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. The cougar is distributed in both South and North America, the coyote only in North America. There are several mammals with larger ranges than the coyote: the brown bear, house mouse, brown rat, and wolf, to name a few. Ucucha 14:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the range is a loy bigger then they say, because there's a lot of catamounts running around in new york. Especially in the Adirondacks, and around Albany... One time people had to come relocate a cat that decided to build its home under my porch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.122.117 (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse a few sightings with a population, which requires documented breeding. There have been 2 recent magazine articles on cougars moving east, one in National Geographic and another in Field and Stream. Both mention that all sightings east of hte Mississippi (in the US anyway) are males. Like bears, males wander very far but females tend to form home ranges near where they were born. So, male-only sightings are NOT reason to extend a range map for the species.--Paddling bear (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

They range from British Columbia to the tip of south America. Also, some people think that the cougars around Pennsylvania were released by private owners. I don't live in a place with cougars but this is from books. --Snowleopard100 (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's an article documenting that they are in Wisconsin: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/environment/article_f6c42aee-c54a-5937-b5ab-b87461d21fe9.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.71.223 (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add information about historical sightings of cougars on the northeast U.S. in this section? I came across an interesting reference to hunting a cougar in New York state in the 1700s. Tulliux (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a rather large population here in Kentucky. They're just about everywhere really, at least here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.243.144 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Please note that Kentucky and the northeast U.S. and Canada is being discussed and written about in the Eastern Cougar article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Raised importance rating

[1] An attempt is made to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.[2]SriMesh | talk 03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Any thoughts as to how/whether to provide disambiguation with the current popular use of the term Cougar as a euphemism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships)? Somersetlevels (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's delete the North American Cougar page please

Go take a look at it. It is an embarressment in terms of fringe stuff, in terms of size. And the overlap with this articles means that things are better covered here anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.157 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, we don't need a page for every cougar subspecies--Snowleopard100 (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's very close to this page, but some might be worth saving and merging into this article, a lot of work for someone.--Paddling bear (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC) If I get time, I might see if some of the info from that page will fit here. I'd like to move some of the intro paragraph down into a section about 'range', it's a bit long and detailed.--Paddling bear (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't need another page for the main subspecies. I'll read into it more because there might be a few things present that are not in the Cougar article itself. I'm neutral about it at the moment when I get sometime I'll definitely really determine if the North American page is necessary.Mcelite (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of precedent and good reason to keep separate articles. It would be much better to improve both articles than to sweep one under the rug. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading it now, I don't see any point in separate pages, so why not merge the info and have North American Cougar link to this page? Most people will enter 'cougar' as a search term, not 'North American cougar'. I don't know how to do it though. I'd understand a page for Eastern Cougar if there was enough material.--Paddling bear (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Subspecies

Last time I knew there were 29 subspecies, has it changed?--Snowleopard100 (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparantly. Using genetics, Culver et al. found such close relationships across North America that they lumped all of those subspecies together, and that is accepted by the main source Wikipedia uses. I think someone did a good job of listing both old and new subspecies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddling bear (talk • contribs) 17:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Mountain Lion" by Rebecca L. Grambo and "Cougar: The American Lion" both say that they have 26 subspecies. "Forest Cats of North America:Cougars, Bobcats, Lynx" by Jerry Konbalenko says there are 29 subspecies. I couldn't seem to find any knowledgeable references on the web though.--Snowleopard100 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, and when were they published?--Paddling bear (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

MSW3 [3] Only lists 6 subspecies. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and the article does says that it is according to the Mammal subspecies of the World.--Snowleopard100 (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Melanism

I have researched this for several years and I have always gone back and forth. I could never find definitive documentation to prove that melanism existed in the species. I have found a legitimate scientific article citing the existence of a melanistic cougar.

"Claims of such sightings, however, are typically met with skepticism, despite the documentation of at least one North American case by Barnes (1960), who examined the pelt of a black puma killed in Colorado."

http://www.fosbirds.org/FFN/PDFs/FFNv23n1p13-14Tischendorf.pdf

BARNES, C. 1960. The cougar or mountain lion. The Ralton Co., Salt Lake City.

this link does not work and goes to Florida ornithological site, which I doubt has much on cougars, black or not. --Paddling bear (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a less scientific yet promising article "The mysterious black panther makes a rare appearance, scout reports"

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/13/SP8C1031C2.DTL&hw=tom+stienstra&sn=016&sc=180#ixzz0lRV0Sdxs

I would like to see wording indicating that melanism is "exceptionally rare with very few documented sightings by wildlife professionals and only one documented case where a melanistic cougar was taken by trapping and then examined by qualified personnel."

One cat in 500 years is not just rare, it's a genetic anomoly, assuming Barnes even knew what he was doing (there are other mistakes by 'professionals' working outside their area of expertise).--Paddling bear (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to see more documented accounts in recent history "in the last five years" in places they were previously expirated. Such as the documented Chicago cougar that was killed and documented by police. Or the Kaskaski Illinois Cougar that was hit and killed by a train and then studied by Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, which stated it was a "wild cougar". It is easy to find a dozen confirmed accounts of Mountain lions in the Midwest with little or no trouble. I understand that these are not viable breeding populations as they are only males but this isn't an article on "viable breeding populations of mountain lions" its an article about "mountain lions". I feel as if this page gets a ton of hits from people researching the recent rare sighting in their state and then this page lets them down by not covering the confirmed phenomena of cougars moving east across the Mississippi river in apparently growing numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.237.154 (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a section focused on expansion of cougars eastward, with a link to the Eastern Cougar Network, which has a map coded by reliability. Take a stab at it. Be clear that while many are determined to be wild, several are escaped animals. They can tell by the wear on teeth and by genetics since most escapes are from South America.--Paddling bear (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I vividly recall an episode of "Daniel Boone" TV series that featured a black puma, even if thats not the TV show I'm 110% recall the animal as it still showed a white mussel. Whether this was a dyed normal colored puma or not isn't certain. One Episode Daughter of the Devil" mentions this fact: <re>http://tv.msn.com/tv/episode/daniel-boone/daughter-of-the-devil/</ref> 184.59.157.109 (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.71.201.190, 26 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

DoneScrotum needs to be changed to Cougar

75.71.201.190 (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Add link to Balanced Ecology Inc. (BEI) article

{{editsemiprotected}} Balanced Ecology Inc. (BEI) is mentioned in Conservation Status section but the reference doesn't link to its article.

260 lb Cougar?

Hey all. Reading the article, it mentions rare specimens of about 260 lbs. Could anyone actually source this? Looking it up, it seems to be just an exaggerated urban myth. If no source is given, I'll recommend the statement for deletion. Bamboozlingbert21 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not an urban myth; it is possible, just not common. The largest cougar was over 300 lbs. so if that's possible, then it wouldn't be exaggerated to say that some specimens could become over 40 lbs. lighter than that. There will be freaks of nature in every species. Pumagirl7 ^{Leave a message} 14:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Cougar or Puma

Does anyone else think that the title should be changed to puma, I find it a slightly more common name. The latin name of the animal is Puma concolor and therefore perhaps puma should be the accepted name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.248 (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, Puma is correct and more common. Panther, cougar, catamount and whatever over names people call pumas are regional names.173.87.184.245 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Puma is not the more common name, but it is the proper name for puma concolor. I only use puma in speech. Cougar, mountain lion, catamount, American leopard, painted devil, silver lion, red tiger, and every other name is just that: another name. Puma is proper. In addition, even if we don't choose puma, I'd rather "mountain lion" because of the connotations of the word cougar. Pumagirl7 ^{Leave a message} 14:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed also. Puma is now the vastly predominate common name used in the peer reviewed biological and ecological literature. Warren Johnson and Stephen O'Brien refer to Puma concolor as "puma" in their recent 2006 paper on the genetics of the Felidae and also in their 2007 Scientific American article tracing the genetic divergence of the various Felidae genus and species. I just emailed Dr. Johnson and he agrees as does the head of the Felidae Conservation Fund, Zara McDonald. If I don't hear any objections given the clear consensus so far, I'll move the page from Cougar to Puma and start working on redirects...Schmiebel (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC) December 19, 2011

No, you really need to start a new thread at the bottom and given that it may be contested then you will need to do this formally at WP:RM. This thread does not reflect consensus nor accuracy. Most of the foregoing arguments are immediately dismissed as incorrect with this. Citing experts in the field is not the way to try to make a common name argument. You have just undermined your argument...what the experts do is not common.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, so long as the redirects are inclusive. A couple of months ago, National Geographic (magazine, not TV) ran a pretty extensive (and rather good) feature article about "Cats in Crisis." Cat #5 was referred to as "Puma", while also noting the cat's many other names. It seems even "mainstream" sources have adopted the Puma nomenclature. --Seduisant (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

...and yet the taxonomic sources still state that cougar is the common name Mammal Species of the World. Also, National Geographic's official name for the cat is Mountain lion here...and they call it cougar in this recent video they just published in November....so the Nat Geo Cat #5 doesn't support this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, Berean, I'll start a new thread at the bottom. Everyone if you want to continue the Move Page debate please go to bottom of page. Schmiebel (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Origin of Name "Mountain Lion" Folktale

I have three things: 2 suggestions and 1 question.

• Maybe this story could be added to the "Naming and etymology" section.

"In speaking of the many names of cougar, one folktale tells the story of Native Americans who would bring pelts to trade in what is now New York City. When the Europeans and white settlers would question why only skins of females (given the lack of manes) were brought for trade, the Native Americans explained that the males lived far away in the mountains, playing a joke of sorts on the naïve newcomers—this is why cougars, who are not specific to mountain regions at all, came to be known as “mountain lions”. "

http://www.cougarfund.org/naturalhistory/names/

• I also think it would be really nice if all 40+ names of the puma were listed or maybe made into a stub.

I found these names just from a basic Google search: Cougar, Catamount, Painter, Panther, Ghost cat, Puma, Shadow Cat, Mountain lion, Mexican lion, deer tiger, mountain screamer, silver lion, devil cat, Indian devil, sneak cat, king cat, mountain devil, red tiger, deercat, fire cat, plain lion, grey lion, caracajou, klandagi, catawampus, quinquajou, long tail, swamp lion

• While looking at a few puma sites, I came across THIS picture. It is the site's first picture. What struck me as odd was that the adult-seeming cat has blue eyes.

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Some of those watching this page might be willing to comment on Upper Peninsula of Michigan with regard to its coverage of cougars under subhed "Wildlife."

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

After reading the section of the linked page, I see no reason to change anything on this cougar page. particularly after, "The biologists with the DNRE currently do not believe that there is a breeding population anywhere in the state, rather that the sighted animals are visitors to the state.[11] As late as January 2007, the DNRE's official position was that no cougars lived in Michigan.--Paddling bear (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)"

New book

• Hornocker, Maurice (Editor); Negri, Sharon (Editor); Rabinowitz, Alan (2009). Cougar: Ecology and Conservation [Hardcover] Chicago: University of Chicago Press ISBN 0226353443; ISBN 978-0226353449. FWIW, you can get at least a partial read (and search) of this at Amazon.com. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

Lifestyle

The page states that "like many other cats, the cougar is solitary," although according to the description next to the taxidermy diorama in the New York Natural History Museum, and shown in the diorama itself, the puma is usually found in pairs, except when the female has kits. I have read other places that the puma is, yes, solitary, so perhaps we could state both? Pumagirl7 (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Puma do not travel in pairs unless it's breeding season. I'll believe every other source and biologists that I know who have worked on them rather than a museum curator trying to explain why he has 2 in a diorama.--Paddling bear (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it dangerous for a bear to be on a cougar page? Drmies (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Especially when there are hunters around. All we need now is a wascally wabbit.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Human attacks have increased?

The quote concerning the increase of human fatalities (citation 4) in the beginning of the text is dead. Also, a featured link (http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks.html#stats) by the arizona game and fish department (citation 93: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/mtn_lion_attacks.shtml) suggests that there is no statistically proven increase in fatalities. I therefor suggest to delete or edit certain passage. --Kokosdieb (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, go for it. WP:BB. --Seduisant (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I also deleted the passage about attack rates in certain, picked out states, because the data ammount (3 or 1 kills) is yet too low to make a statement about the danger of cougar attacks in these states (see http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks.html#stats). --Kokosdieb (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Source error: Puma concolor anthonyi

The source link that is given about the Eastern Southamerican Puma is wrong. In the new Book "Cougar. Ecology and Conservation" by Hornocker & Negri, P.35, it says that this Subspecies is called "capricornensis". As this book is more actual and directly from the researchers, i´d give it priority. --Kokosdieb (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sumatran Cougars?

I'm sorry, but who made that up? There are no Cougars in the Uk, no Cougars in Sumatra, so can we please have a good source or change the map of the Cougar's range? 213.122.124.195 (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done I have restored the correct map, I was not aware it had been changed, clearly the user had no idea what a Cougar is. Cheers ZooPro 00:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Connecticut cougar

Please check this news item: Baron, David (July 28, 2011). "The Cougar Behind Your Trash Can". Boulder, Colorado: New York Times. Retrieved July 28, 2011. DNA indicates that cougar killed by an SUV in Connecticut June 11, 2011 was from Black Hills, Dakota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.46.188.10 (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Range of Cougar?

The range map is inaccurate. I live in Ontario, we have cougars here. The Ministry of Natural Resources has acknowledged this. I thought that this was old news, but apparently not everyone has heard . Here is a link to a Toronto Star article from a while back (http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/826635--confirmed-big-cats-prowl-in-ontario). I know better citation will be needed to make the change, but hopefully this will get the ball rolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.150.96 (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well here is a link to a page on the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources website verifying cougars do live in the province (http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Wildlife/1ColumnSubPage/STDPROD_068840.html). “So while we know there are cougars in the province, we also know they are extremely rare.”

Also, what about cougars in places like Quebec or Wisconsin? I think this should be looked into. Maybe government bodies there also have acknowledged the presence of cougars there too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.150.96 (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

See Eastern Cougar and also the talk page at Upper Peninsula. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 13 October 2011

I would like to add Minnesota to the population area for the Mountain Lion. We have populations growing here, as evidence there have been several sightings by humans and many more on trail cams. I have personally seen a young mountain lion on Sept 28,2011, 3 miles NW of Warroad, MN. I am not sure you will get a warm welcome from our local DNR, as I have heard that MN and MT have been trading each other cats for wolves. I am sure you would not get a confirmation on this. I personally know of many people who have seen cougars over the the past 10 years in this area. The lions used to pass through with very view actually staying here. However, with the recent elevation in sightings and trail cam sighting I would have a strong argument to have them added to your article. Thank you for viewing my request, Jamie Gowdy <non-public information> 69.89.198.156 (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Not done for now: Please provide a reliable source to support this edit. There are a number of states with sightings of cougars which are not accepted by reliable sources as having populations. Unfortunately, we must base articles on reliable sources, not first hand accounts. Monty₈₄₅ 15:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen discussions about what standard source wikipedia uses for taxonomy, but not sources for maps. Should we use published maps, or created from published data? Perhaps we use the most recent published map but if it's different, also link to the Cougar Network page (http://www.cougarnet.org/) since it may be updated more often.--Paddling bear (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "In Culture" Section

I am removing the "In Culture" section (again). See WP:POPCULTURE, which outlines the policy on this. It would be infesaible to include every reference in popular culture. If there's significant interest in documenting cougars in popular culture, please create a dedicated article, as these references are not relevant to this article, which is about the animal. Khromegnome (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

So should articles ONLY be about the biological or should the cover culture or even hunting, food, conservation, culture, etc? I think lacking such a section is more an issue than including it. Sure, you need to know how to do it right...but put on your big boy pants and do it right.TCO (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Apex predator

I removed the text stating that cougars "are not the apex predator in their region" because the apex predator page lists them, and the definition of apex is that no other species prey upon them, not just that other stronger predators exist where they live.--Paddling bear (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on Retitling the page from Cougar to Puma

This continues an earlier thread debating whether the common name for Puma concolor should now be changed to "Puma vs. Cougar", which started in the Cougar or Puma section above. I believe that the predominant use of "puma" now extant in the peer-reviewed biological and ecological journals argues for puma. This seems to follow from the working out of the evolutionary tree of the Felidae family in 2006 and 2007 by Warren Johnson and Stephen O'Brien. I have emailed Dr. Johnson and he said yesterday that almost everyone in academia has adopted "puma". The NGram which compares whether puma or cougar is used most often in google book titles only goes to the year 2000 so doesn't seem very relevant as the genetics that define the different Felidae were only worked out in 2006 (Johnson and O'Brien Molec Ecol 2006) and 2007 (O'Brien and Johnson 2007). My experience with scientific journals is that books may lag 5-10 years behind the published peer-reviewed articles in the journals, as text books take so long to develop. National Geographic is not peer-reviewed scientific literature, it is grey or pop literature so is not that relevant. However the Wilson taxonomic book Mammal Species of the World is relevant if a tad outdated (published 2005). What I'll do is email the lead author of that book, Dr. WIlson at the Smithsonian, and get his opinion.Schmiebel (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Very good arguments...and thank you for starting this thread. I would suggest that we shouldn't try to follow what names the professionals use. WP:COMMONNAME exists to help preserve names that ordinary Joes call something. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Our criteria identify that the recognizability and naturalness are key. Which words are being sought by the public? Using November as a sampling:

If we add the hits on the redirect pages of all the alternate names given in the article

• Puma— 42129 views
• Mountain lion— 10330 views
• Catamount— 947 views
• Mountain cat— 262 views
• Cougar dab page— 6198 views

All of these added together total 59866 views

But the article for Cougar had

• Cougar— 133718 views

Subtracting the hits for all other names combined from the total for the cougar page (133718 - 59866 = 73852) leaves a substantially larger number of 73852 views from those who searched the most common name of cougar and not one of the other names.

Cougar is far more popular as the common name.

Cougar (73852) > Puma (42129)

It does not make sense to try to redirect the public...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Wilson responded to my email regarding his taxonomic source Mammal Species of the World (2005) and my question that since Dr. Warren Johnson and Stephen O'Brien, via genetic sequencing found that Puma concolor was in the puma lineage, that most scientists have adopted the common name as "puma" in 2006 and 2007. Here is his response: "I think you are correct, and I do concur with using puma as the common name. I think Warren is correct in his reasoning, and it makes sense to me to change from cougar to puma. We used puma in Vol. 1 of the "Handbook of Mammals of the World". Have a look at http://www.lynxeds.com/catalog/hmw for info on this series." Note his Handbook was published more recently, in 2009. Wilson used "cougar" in his 2005 Mammal Species of the World. So the genetic discoveries have led to a change in the common name by scientists. As to the argument that cougar is used most commonly in wikipedia, the reasoning seems circular to me when a name change occurs in the biological literature it may take a long time for the uneducated masses to adopt it. Wikipedia's use of older terminology is actually driving the masses to continue to use the older terminology. Shouldn't wikipedia seek to drive the public forward education-wise? Also couldn't the slang use of the term "Cougar" being what is really driving most of the hits on "Cougar". It probably drives a fair amount of vandalism also... We could easily add a redirect from Cougar to Puma so the uneducated could still find it, no? Curious what you and others think. ThanksSchmiebel (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Also couldn't the slang use of the term "Cougar" being what is really driving most of the hits on "Cougar"."...no, I already took that into account when I included the dab page in the above figures. Only slightly more than 6000 landed views on the dab page so the theory that tons of people are looking for the slang term doesn't hold water.

People are going to use their accepted terms. Scientists aren't going to change that nor is it their place to. What they prefer using does not drive what the public prefers using...and that is all that this is concerning some scientists, a preference. Using a term other than puma does not in any way indicate that someone's education is faulty. I won't be using puma...ever...unless I am referring to the scientific name. The fact that you are calling them the "uneducated masses" indicates that your logic is faulty. Cougar isn't "older terminology"...it is quite current and correct.

I'm not convinced that scientists are swaying towards the use of puma either. Only time will tell.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I still have trouble with the common usage based on page hits issue, but thanks for clarifying that you cleverly deleted the vulgar hits. Most people use "Brontosaurus" but wikipedia (correctly) has it as Apatosaurus. Most people call American Indians "Indians" but wikipedia lists them as Indigenous peoples of the Americas, which is descriptive but not common usage. There seem to be many exceptions to the common usage logic and this makes sense to me as I think an online encyclopedia should lead and educate by using terms like these as they are dominant in the academic literature now.Schmiebel (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As usual, these discussions drive me to do more due diligence and so I went to Web of Knowledge and pulled the 30 most recent consecutive scientific pubs (excluding prehistoric, or only latin name used) searching on "Puma concolor" and got 13 hits where the authors referred to P.c. using common name of cougar, 12 on puma, 3 on mountain lion and 2 on panther (both Florida panther) as the common name. So you're right there is anything but consensus in the scientific community. There appears to be considerable geographic or regional disparity in use of the common name. Everyone I know in California (lay audience) uses mountain lion and nobody I know uses cougar. More scientifically, all ten of the references to P.c. outside of the United States all used "puma". So "cougar" appears to be the more common U.S. euphemism and the U.S. drives 2/3 of the literature in this modest sampling. I'll remove the Discuss Move Page request because I think you're right, this will have to evolve over time.Schmiebel (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Fwiw, I was raised with the terminology "Mountain lion" and therefore wasn't attempting to use my personal preference here. I had looked into this before and conceded that cougar was indeed the common name. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2012 - cougar ≠ panther.

Cougars are not panthers. They are different genuses. (not sure if the first one sent or not)

108.194.43.4 (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Panther is a common name for the N. American cougar.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Panther" is just a term used by people for melanistic jaguars, leopards, and occasionally tigers. This makes it a color variant and therefore not a species. You may be thinking of "Panthera", the genus of cats who can roar. But in the Americas, the cougar is called a panther. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 20:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Attacks on humans aberrant behaviour?

It is correct to say that "Preceding attacks on humans, cougars display aberrant behavior"? Surely animals don't always exhibit odd behaviour before a human in attacked. That seems a far fetched idea.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate claim regarding fatal attacks

The second paragraph of the article claims that "Fatal attacks on humans have been trending upward", yet the cited link claims that *attacks* have been increasing, not *fatal attacks*, and the article "List of fatal cougar attacks in North America by Decade" suggests that fatal attacks have not increased (and possibly have declined in recent years). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyroclast (talk • contribs) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

New references

I removed that horrible Canadian Geographic reference in the Physical characteristics section and am trying to replace it with this reference from the Zoological Wildlife Foundation: http://zoologicalwildlifefoundation.com/animals/mammals/felines/cougar/

Can someone add it for me? I tried but the link is not taking. I did something wrong.

I also wanted to add some references for the claim of the Cougar's 40 foot horizontal jump. Here they are: http://www.bluelion.org/cougar.htm

http://www.saskatoonzoosociety.ca/assets/files/animals_files/cougar.pdf

I dont really know how to put references. Help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuartus4 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a simple way. Put <ref> in front of the reference and </ref> at the end. If the reference is a link, as you indicated above, put square brackets around the link. You could also add a title for the link by adding a space then the title, e.g., Cougar. After the concluding square bracket I usually add a comma followed by the site's name, e.g., National Geographic. Don't leave a space between text and <ref>. I will do the first refenence; you can try to do the others for practice. Dger (talk)

23:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The references have now been added.

Mexico

Noting that this talk page lists cougars as important to wikiproject Mexico, and that the template on the page at present that states "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with United States and Canada and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject." would include the relative lack of coverage of cougars in Mexico. Some relevant sources are this article this one and this pdf. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, I was just removing a template that had no justification and had had no justification for six months. If you can find a way to put more data in from those sources, please do. Red Slash 22:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)