Talk:Lion/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Range Map

The range map shows the historic (rather than the prehistoric Pleistocene) range of the lion as including Spain, Portugal, southern France, Italy and much of western Asia as far north as the Caucasus region. I am aware of the presence of lions in ancient Greece, and in some parts of the Middle East during antiquity. However, the presence of lions in the other northern regions (as shown in this map) during historic times is inaccurate.

Does anyone have any source that shows otherwise? This web page makes the claim that the lion inhabited those areas (in a later section), but does not give any source. The "European Lion" wiki article gives only one source claiming lions inhabiting those regions during historic times. However, it is a website on ancient Greek coins rather than an informed source (.http://rg.ancients.info/lion/lions.html). It only addresses the lion's range in passing in a single sentence and has no references or sources.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.125.24 (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Changed the range in Southern Europe to question marks in response to controversy on reliability of sources.

--188.221.198.220 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are some sources on the presence of lions in the regions of Greece, Bulgaria and Roumania. According to these sources, lions were still present in these regions until the 1st c. B.C.

Bulgaria - Ninov, L. (1989) Des vestiges de lion sur les terres bulgares. Archeologia (Sofia), 1989, 2, p. 55-61 (more sources on the Balkans and Russia are cited in the text; text in Bulgarian with an abstract in French)
Roumania - Voros. J. (1983) Lion remains from the late neolithic and copper age of the Carpathian basin. Folia Archaeologica, 34, 1983, 33—50.
Greece - Yannouli, E. (2003) Non-domestic carnivores in Greek prehistory : a review. In Kotjabopoulou, E. Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent advances. British School at Athens studies, 9. London, 2003 (p. 175-192).

Ivan Marinov (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Lions hunting a Buffalo

Shouldn't we use the following picture from commons to illustrate lions hunting buffalos in Botswana?

Lions hunting buffalos in Okavango Delta, Botswana

TSBr (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's a nice image. I'll try to incorporate it. Alphard08 (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

heads

The "heads" section had this text:

Cave paintings of extinct European Cave Lions exclusively show animals with no head, or just the hint of a head, suggesting to some that they were more or less headless;[28] however, females hunting for a pride are the likely subjects of the drawings—since they are shown in a group related to hunting—so these images do not enable a reliable judgment about whether the males had heads. The drawings do suggest that the extinct species used the same social organization and hunting strategies as contemporary lions.

This uses a circular reasoning: a) the cave lion paintings show animals without heads, however these were probably paintings of hunting lions, so they must be female, as with contemporary lions only females hunt; b) since the pictures depict only females, it is proof for the same social organization as contemporary lions. -- As can be seen, if a) fails, b) fails as well. It may be headless males hunting, for all we know. Also, the whole "however" is without citing sources, and chunky, the cave paintings do not show groups of lions hunting, but just individuals. Also, that last sentence has no place in a section called "heads". For these reasons, I removed the whole "however (...)" part. Jalwikip (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

'Agreed, I would hardly consider a cave painting to be an accurate depiction/reference to an animals physical characteristics or hunting behavior. I am rather annoyed at myself for not catching it. ZooPro 21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove all "National symbols of XX" Categories

And instead attach them to Lion (heraldry) or Cultural depictions of lions, depending on the circumstances. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Seriously, this article will always cop alot of vandalism. The real problem with articles this size is when it gets hit by a couple of IPs in a row and someone reverts the second vandal. It's a huge article and trying to clean up a year or so down the track can be frustrating. Okay, it's getting reverted now pretty promptly but this will continue every day (not sure about school holidays though) and sooner or later there'll be a hiccup. We had to clean up Humpback whale a couple of years ago with huge chunks of text gone bye-byes. Yes it's only one click to revert, but aren't there a truckload of things to revert? I have this idea that if there were less reverting needed, recent change patrollers would slow down a bit and maybe we'd get more done. Unfortunately editor time is a precious resource. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks yes more time seems to be spent on reverting then actual editing, i welcome the protection. ZooPro 00:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Heartily agree. My devandalization work here is approaching 50% of my time, especially as regards pages about "cute and cuddly" animals, like Red Panda, Tiger, and so on. And we haven't even mentioned the Ape and Elephant articles. Lion was protected for a year, and as soon as the protect was lifted just days ago, the kids went to work. It wouldn't break my heart to see dozens of mammal articles protected in perpetuity. After all, we do have real work to do. --Seduisant (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree we should protect the cute and cuddly articles. ZooPro 00:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Panthera Leo Abyssinica

I removed

* Panthera Leo Abyssinica, a species of Ethiopian lion, the males of which have distinctive black manes.

from Black Lion (disambiguation) for lack of coverage in the accompanying article. BTW, it sounds like a sub-species.
--Jerzy•t 23:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Error in footnotes

There's a typo in the footnote 45. The author of the paper is Craig Packer, not Parker. I'd fix it, but the article is protected. Chrisjthompson (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

"it shows a striking resemblance to Sanskrit pundarikam "tiger," which in turn may come from pandarah "whitish-yellow".

Sanskrit words for tiger include: "vyāghraḥ, śārdūlaḥ, dvīpin." (Apte's English-Sanskrit Dict). Panther is also 'dvīpin'. There is a word puṇḍarīka meaning 'lotus'. Monier-Williams records that ancient Indian lexicographers link puṇḍarīka to "a tiger" but that it is *not found in practice* - one has to pay attention to the abbreviations in MW the 'L.' in particular! Note that Harper only suggests a comparison with puṇḍarīka not a cognative link. He's not very familiar with Sanskrit and often makes small errors in his suggested connections to Sanskrit - though his dictionary is very useful on the whole. Whatever resemblance there is between the words, it is far from "striking" to anyone familiar with Sanskrit or the principles of historical linguistics.
In fact the common word for 'lion' in Sanskrit (and in fact all North Indian languages) is siṃha. You can see this in the surname of Sikhs Anglicised as 'Singh' and in the name 'Singapore' (Skt Siṃha-pura 'the lion city').
English 'lion' is most likely a Semitic loan word; the Greek lēon has no Sanskrit or Avestan/Persian cognate, while the Hebrew and Egyptian are similar. QED.
  • Actually there are several words for lions in Hebrew that are not mentioned in the article :(כפר)KoPHeR for a maned lion and ARYeH or ARI (ארי or אריֶה)for a generic lion.Sochwa (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
So perhaps someone with edit rights could change the article? mahaabaala (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I will add some information if you can provide me with sources. Remember this is english wikipedia so I have no intention of putting in the hebrew words for Lion or adding pointless words that have little to no real world use. ZooPro 11:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tree Climbing Lions :- The true Lion Kings on their Throne Unique to Uganda's Queen Elizabeth National Park - Ishasha Sector

{{editsemiprotected}} Although Lions do not normally climb trees as a habit and may sometime do this when being chased by another lion group or wild buffalo. The unique exception to this is that in Queen Elizabeth National Park - Ishasha Sector of Uganda one finds the Tree Climbing Lions. They climb tree and rest on them during afternoons, when the sun is high. This is truly unique as it doesn't happen else. There have been similar sightings rarely in Lake Manyara National Park of Tanzania. It is truly a wonder to see the King of the Forest - Lions up a tree making it their high throne. Perhaps Uganda's Queen Elizabeth National Park hosts the true Lion Kings which are the Tree clibing lions of its Ishasha Sector.

 Not done Provide reliable sources, and it can be added. CTJF83 pride 16:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Main photo of male lion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:African_Lion_Panthera_leo_Male_Pittsburgh_2800px.jpg

That photo is kinda stupid because.. lions do not naturally live in snow!!! remove that shit and replace it with a majestic wild lion...

I think the same, maybe this image? TbhotchTalk C. 23:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I thought that was funny as well. It ought to be replaced, Lions wouldn't naturally be in snow at all I don't think. Probably they couldn't survive in such cold conditions if the lion didn't have a warm place to sleep at night (in the zoo). Hvatum (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Male Lion as "Leader" of the Pride

This photo http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Pride_leader.jpg/180px-Pride_leader.jpg with its caption "Mature male pride leader With two lionesses, northern Serengeti" is directly contradicted by the article and almost everything else I've ever read about lions. This is like old encyclopedias that talked about the "king bee". There is no meaningful way in which a male lion is the leader of a pride. He's an auxiliary fighter, a sometime hunter and a mate. Lions are not people or even wolves, they have their own social organization and the article makes it clear that the females do the "lion share" of the hunting, the care of cubs and also "lead" the defense of the pride as much as the male lion could be said to do so. The caption could more honestly read, "Two lionesses and a mature male lion of a pride, northern Serengeti." Halfelven (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dubious subspecies section: P. l. sinhaleyus

"erected this subspecies" is the wording used in the cited paper, but its meaning is not completely obvious. Does it mean proposed it, documented it, definitively established it, or what else? Please could an expert suggest better wording to make it more clear? --Stfg (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy and evolution: 1st paragraph

The 1st paragraph of Lion#Taxonomy_and_evolution is really about genus Panthera and would be better in the Panthera article. As this article is way too long, would anyone mind if I delete this paragraph from here?

If it is preferred to keep it here, there's an inconstency that needs dealing with: if the Laetoli fossil is 3.5 million years old and the oldst confirmed Panthera leo records are 2 million years younger, then they are 1.5 million years old. But the following paragraph puts it much later. --Stfg (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Now done, keeping the sentence about closest relatives. --Stfg (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Roar!

Lions are distinct in people's minds for several likely reasons, none the least being their roar. The section on communication would benefit from the addition of Pfefferle et al. (2007), who found that lion's roars do not distinguish between the sexes as much as they establish territorial boundaries. From the abstract: "The analysis revealed differences in relation to sex, which were entirely explained by variation in body size. No evidence that acoustic variables were related to male condition was found, indicating that sexual selection might only be a weak force modulating the lion's roar. Instead, lion roars may have mainly been selected to effectively advertise territorial boundaries."

The full citation is:

Pfefferle, D., West, P.M., Grinnell, J., Packer, C, & Fisher, J. (2007). Do acoustic features of lion, Panthera leo, roars reflect sex and male condition? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(6), 3947-3953.

Sonnyrosenthal (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


Citation Needed

The page shouldn't have been tagged "Featured" when there are "citation needed" and "dead link" tags present in the article. I will provide them after a few days, but these ought to be thoroughly checked before being labeled as featured or good articles, otherwise their credibility would be undermined...Cupidvogel (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2011

85.185.14.120 (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Got a source other than your friend? Seems to be original research--Jac16888 Talk 13:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2011

"was a man-eater," needs a reference. Section "Characteristics," paragraph four. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcherney (talk • contribs) 04:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It already has one, the "Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats". See the inline citation at the end of the sentence. ~ Kimelea (talk) 05:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lion Skin (question, not correction)

In the "White Lions" section, it says "They are not albinos, having normal pigmentation in the eyes and skin."

That sentence made me wonder: What IS normal skin pigmentation for a lion? I can see that there is black or pink (or both) skin on their lips, eye rims, and nose, but if someone were to spread the fur on a lion's leg or back or belly, what color would the skin below be?

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A cat's skin is the same colour, more or less, as the fur on top. Pale fur has pale skin underneath. If memory serves (I have seen a lion with a shaved patch, but it was some time ago), a lion's skin is beigey pink. If you shaved a tiger, it would still have black stripes where the stripes grow in the fur :) ~ Kimelea (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

P. l. melanochaita

The article states:

P. l. melanochaita, known as the Cape lion, became extinct in the wild around 1860. Results of mitochondrial DNA research do not support the status as a distinct subspecies. It seems probable that the Cape lion was only the southernmost population of the extant P. l. krugeri.[1]

But that is a wrong way to put it, since the Cape Lion was named first, which gives it priority over P. l. krugeri. P. l. krugeri are therefore populations of P. l. melanochaita, not the other way around. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Now the article states "although one of these, the Cape lion, formerly described as Panthera leo melanochaita, is probably invalid." Yet again, this is wrong, as P. l. melanochaita has many years priority over P. l. krugeri. FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page contents

Does anyone know how to make a contents box appear on this page? Is there any reason to not have one? LookingGlass (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference requests

I have placed an inline tag to illustrate where I think references would benefit the statements made. I also noticed that a number of sections in the article seem to rely on one source: Schaller. I have added a message on one of these sections, requesting additional sources. The references to Schaller are made in a "non-wiki" style so at first I couldn't find the reference at all. Although the book referred to is detailed: Schaller, George B. (1972)." The Serengeti lion: A study of predator-prey relations", these details, or at least some of them, should be included in the references themselves.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations LookingGlass (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

See the "short citations" section. The way in which this is cited is fine for a FA. LittleJerry (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


Edit Request

congo lion needs a link to its wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.89.230 (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

The Hebrew text in the etymology section should be altered/removed ("The Hebrew word לָבִיא (lavi) may also be related.[9]"). The Hebrew word for "lion" is not "lavi," it's arieh, which is rendered in Hebrew text as: אריה

It appears as if there are sources that say that it may be related --Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The source cited is not available online. Heatherly84 (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the Hebrew spoken today is the result of deliberate efforts to revitalise a once-almost-extinct language and has futher changed over time anyway - it is significantly different to the ancient Hebrew used when Jewish people would have encountered asiatic lions in their historical range.

This article does discuss in some depth the variety of scriptural Hebrew words for lion and mentions lavi with reference to the specific scripture. Article: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0013_0_12564.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.89.230 (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Featured article?

Although this article is assessed as FA, I still find one [date missing] tag, one [clarification needed] tag, one [citation needed] tag and some ISBN errors. Someone pls fill them up, else the supporting claims may be removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh - this article is a high-traffic one and suffers a steady rate of erosion....will take a look later today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 12/28/13

The statement that female lions do all the hunting has been proven false because of the fact that male lions hunt with the pack but female lions do a lot of the hunting: https://www.google.com/search?q=male+lions+hunt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattkohnen (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Mfuwe Man-eater

The only source of this incident comes from a book that may not be credible. Unlike the Tsavo man-eaters, I can find no research done on this lion or the supposed attacks. I suggest the removal of this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greedo8 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Pronoun usage in article

Throughout the article, lions are referred to with the inconsiderate pronoun "it", in all cases. While, when the sex is ambiguous, "it" seems agreeable, "they" would be less demeaning and chauvinistic. Especially concerning to me are instances where the sex of the lion is clearly known (e.g. when discussing the ethology of male and female lions), yet they are still regarding as objects. This is concerning to me, and while it seems like a small issue, it is important that style be improved wherever possible. 2620:104:E001:A011:ACD1:C701:77ED:BD37 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of the issue? Could you then explain what changes you would like to make for each example? Thanks. Greedo8 17:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism overlooked?

Why is the Conservation Status listed as "Extinct"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.130.99 (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, status restored! AshLin (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

Cite 79 uses a source that is already a general source. Please fix this. 155.138.246.147 (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC) 155.138.246.147 (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@BigCat82: that ref was added by you here. Could you make it consistent with the other refs for Schaller (refs 61-66) if you know the page number? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thanks for pointing it out I will fix it. Big Cats - talk 07:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Fixed :) Big Cats - talk 12:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hunting in packs v. hunting alone

I may have missed it, but is there a term for animals that hunt in packs like lions and wolves -- as opposed to animals that hunt alone? I think it would a good idea to incorporate that concept into this article. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The term is "cooperative hunting".__DrChrissy (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015

The following phrase makes it appear that William of Malmesbury was the one keeping the lions. Also, the Palace was a hunting lodge until Henry II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodstock_Palace):

Population and conservation status -- In captivity:

"stocked with animals from an earlier menagerie started in 1125 by Henry I at his palace in Woodstock, near Oxford; where lions had reportedly been stocked by William of Malmesbury."

The phrase would better read:

"stocked with animals from an earlier menagerie started in 1125 by Henry I at his hunting lodge in Woodstock, near Oxford (the lodge later becoming Woodstock Palace) -- the stocking of lions was reported by William of Malmesbury."


Fewwiggle (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fewwiggle:, you should be able to edit the page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Done Also, Casliber, Fewwiggle only has 9 edits. 10 are required for autoconfirmed status. Stickee (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Add a new section?: Human-lion conflict

I am currently working on a new section about human-lion conflict, specifically livestock depredation. Thoughts on if this should go under this page or be a separate page?JuliaD123 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of "big cats"

The lead sentence of this article describes the lion as "one of the five big cats in the genus Panthera", with big cats linking to a Wikipedia article stating that only 4 of the 5 cats in this genus (the snow leopard being excluded) are generally considered big cats. This contradiction ought to be resolved in one way or another. Since it involves a subject only peripherally related to lions, my default would be to defer to the page on big cats, but I'll wait to give someone more knowledgeable than me a chance to address this. JudahH (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Would deleting the word "five" solve the problem? It strikes me that omitting this detail might be better than misinforming the reader. DrChrissy (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I would be in favor of deleting the word "five". The source used in the big cat article is very poor, and the statement appears to be unsourced in this article unless I'm missing something. @Casliber: Do you have any notion on this? --Laser brain (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I tend to agree, the number is somewhat tangential to the discussion anyway, so I have removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Longevity

Less a question of what to include, but where to include it: So far the lead mentions that wild males can reach an age of 10-14 years. And under 6.1 In captivity, the example of Apollo, who reached an age of 22 in Honolulu Zoo is given. I think more information could be given about the longevity. For example Nowell & Jackson[2] compile information that in the wild, "males generally 12 (Hanby and Bygott 1991), and up to 16 years (Smuts et al. 1978), females generally 15-16 (Hanby and Bygott 1991), and up to 18 years (Bertram 1975a); [Captivity] average 13 years, but up to 25-30 (Guggisberg 1975)". To be precise, Guggisberg[3] states for captivity that "Twenty-five years is sometimes given as the maximum, but there exists a record of one attaining an age of about thirty years in the Cologne Zoo." But as said in the beginning: Where would you put this information in the article? I didn't really find the fitting place. Separate section (although it would be a very short one)? Robuer (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Addis Ababa lion

An Ethiopian lion in Addis Abeba's Zoo, 2006.

"A team of international researchers has provided the first comprehensive DNA evidence that the Addis Ababa lion in Ethiopia is genetically unique and is urging immediate conservation action to preserve this vulnerable lion population." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121011085336.htm FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, interesting. Will read properly and digest and add later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems they're not having a good time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek5MU3Lf0LM FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A photograph of an Ethiopian lion (P. l. roosevelti or P. l. abyssinica)

Can this be added for the section on subspecies of lions? Leo1pard (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Lion cf. African Lion

I have found this article a little confusing in its title. There is only one species of extant lion and several sub-species. This article is about the single species, the lion, also known as the African lion. So why is the name of this article not "African lion", or, why does it not mention this in the very first sentence?__DrChrissy (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"African Lion" redirects to this page. I am unsure what else you are asking, could you clarify? Greedo8 15:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I have edited the opening sentence to how I believe it should be. Is this incorrect?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know the edit you made is correct. Thanks! Greedo8 16:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Cheers!__DrChrissy (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's incorrect to state it's also called African lion, as there are wild lions in India. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That depends on the subject of the article which is the question I have tried to raise above. If the article is only about the lion that lives in Africa than I think it is correct to say it is also called the African Lion. If it is about lions in general, I agree it may not be appropriate. However, the taxobox states the article is about P. leo the species. The Asiatic lion is a sub-species.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course this is about Panthera leo the whole species. Editor abcdef (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Well then, why is it incorrect to say this is the African lion?__DrChrissy (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Because there is the subspecies of the Asiatic lion Panthera leo persica. In other words: on the one hand, if you talk about the African lion (which anyways does not really exist as such, but consist of various subspecies), the Asiatic subspecies is not included. On the other hand, if you talk about the whole species Panthera leo (as does the article) this includes the Asiatic subspecies and can therefore not be called the African lion. Robuer (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I follow that reasoning. But if the "African lion" does not exist, we should perhaps make this clear in the article?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I have edited the first couple of sentences to clarify this - comments are welcome.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, i found the following on the Homepage of the IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group in the Profile called "African Lion" (there is a separate one for the Asiatic lion): "Previously lions were divided into two subspecies: the African lion (Panthera leo leo) and the Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica). However, based on several recent genetic studies, the lion (Panthera leo) is due for taxonomic revision. The studies indicate that lions from Asia and West and Central Africa are more closely related than lions from Eastern and Southern Africa. These two main divisions of lions are not homogeneous as there is genetic subdivision within each, with more genetic variation and deeper divergences within the Eastern and Southern branch than within the Asian plus West and Central African one." I guess the statement in the first sentence could also be mentioned in the article for clarification on where the term "African lion" actually comes from? Or what do you think? Unfortunately the Website only gives a list of references but not which statement is from which source.__Robuer (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirecting African lion to Lion#Africa

What I am thinking of is editing that section on the lion's distribution and habitat into 2 sections, one for Eurasia, the other for Africa, and then redirecting African lion to the sub-section for Africa, that way, we can have a more valid link for African lion IMO, rather than African lion having to redirect to the whole article, since this article also talks about extant Asiatic lions and prehistoric cave lions. What do you think? Leo1pard (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This redirect may not be appropriate. Taxonomy of the cats has recently been revised, and 2 lion subspecies are now recognised: P. l. leo in northern Africa and Asia, and P. l. melanochaita in Southern Africa, hence there is anyway no 'Eurasian' lion. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I meant in a geographical way, not a taxonomic way. Leo1pard (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Given the what is now known about lions, African lion is probably the appropriate name for all modern lions ( as distinct from cave lions). All modern lions are derived from a relatively recent African population. The "Asiatic lion" is just an African lion that migrated out of Africa. The history of the name, though, would make this too confusing.
I think the redirect suggestion makes sense. It is to the Africa subsection of the Distribution and habitat section rather than to a section on African lions. It could be labelled Lions in Africa to be even clearer, although that seems redundant. I changed a reference to the subspecies in the Eurasia section. While not a subspecies, the name Asiatic lion is still appropriate. Jts1882 (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

When was the last wild Barbary Lion killed?

In this article we have:

as the last wild Barbary lion was killed in Morocco in 1922. (Nowell, Kristin; Jackson, Peter (1996). "Panthera Leo" (PDF). Wild Cats: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group. pp. 17–21. ISBN 2-8317-0045-0)

Where as in Barbary Lion we have:

The last of its kind was shot in the western Maghreb in 1942 near the Tizi n'Tichka pass. (Black, S. A., Fellous, A., Yamaguchi, N., Roberts, D. L. (2013). Examining the Extinction of the Barbary Lion and Its Implications for Felid Conservation. PLoS ONE 8(4): e60174).

This looks like there might be an inconsistency. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

I think we should use the latest source (the one from 2013). Greedo8 15:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. Poor Barbary lions :~ BigCat82 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
If you mean the Barbary lion as being the lion that was in North Africa, then yes, the wild Barbary lion is gone, but if you go by genetics, then it appears that it lives on in what we would know as the Senegal lion of Western and Central Africa. Something similar applies to the Cape lion, given its relationship with extant Southern African lions, at least. Leo1pard (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Lion versus tiger

This article not to mention the lenght of skull of the lion

The book A field guide to the carnivores of the world ISBN 978-2-603-01856-9 written by Luke Hunter Priscilla Barret, published by New Holland Publishers in 2011 mention that it is the lion that has the greatest length of skull among the big cats and ahead in this area the siberian tiger( which is the subspecies of tiger with the largest skull with a skull length of 37,9 cm on average) with a skull length of 42 cm on average[4], and a record length of skull of 91 cm[5] held by a lion killed in Burkina Faso in West Africa in 2008.

--~rourébrébé80.15.124.56 (talk)


Further, I think (but am not certain) that the skull picured in the article is not actually a lion's skull. Maybe a bear skull? --170.145.0.100 (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC) The skull is not a lions but bear skull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwolf2242 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


After comparing it to some other photos, the dentition, shape of the infraorbital foramen, shape of the mandible, and overall elongated shape of the skull make me pretty sure that this is not a lion skull, but rather some species of bear. I don't want to change it myself without some confirmation from an expert, because I'm just a random layperson. To be clear, the image in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lionskull-tobuzoo-2012.jpg --170.145.0.100 (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This picture is definitely not a lion skull. It is some species of Ursid. Tooth number, molar shape are obviously not felid. This needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.182.97 (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The cited article says "Le contour de la tète" this is French for "the circumference of the head", since "contour" is also used in English and has a similar meaning it is confusing that it got mistranslated, mistakes happen I guess. To set the record straight remember that among carnivorans (dogs, bears, cats and kin) only the largest individuals of the largest bear taxa surpass 50cm in skull length along with the extinct beardog Amphicyon inges, if you see mentions of felids with skulls bigger than that, be suspicious of its veracity. Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Check Tiger versus lion#Skulls, the information on the maximum, known length of the lion's skull is there. Leo1pard (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Lion's weight

I think that in the intro it should be introducing my mentioning that exceptionally large males exceed 7000 lbs. I feel that anyone that wants that there is biased. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be farts. That's not true at all. A lion over 9000 lbs is record sized not. We don't always need to mention the weight of an animal in the intro, but if everyone insists for this one, it should say "with some males exceeding 1000 lbs". Golfcourseairhorn (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC) joany brown owns a lion he lives in jamaca. which is neither misleading nor biased. The statement is simply intended to illustrate how large the animal is. Further down, in the Characteristics section, it is noted that "Weights for adult lions range between 150–250 kg (330–550 lb) for males and 120–182 kg (264–400 lb) for females." By all means make a constructive suggestion if you think the lead needs to be changed. Thanks. --Seduisant (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Would you present the Elephant article with "with some males exceeding 16,000 lbs"? The Polar bear article with "with some males exceeding 1760 lbs"? The American alligator article with "with some males exceeding 15 feet"? The Hippo article with "with some males exceeding 9,000 lbs"? Golfcourseairhorn (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The heaviest lion ever recorded was not simba(826lbs).Lions like simba (826 lbs) are being shown to be not as uncommon as most would think, many other lions rival and even surpasses his size and weight, such as Woody (800 lbs); Rutledge (806 lbs); Rhino (850 lbs); Prince (900 lbs); Peter jacksons lion (930 lbs); lion named ali (1,000 lbs) Ethopian courts lion (1,000 lbs) Sultan (1,000 lbs).And sultan was biggest of them all only 46 kilos lighter than the biggest siberian tiger ever tyka(1100lbs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpsjeffers (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC) bye!

Typo

In "hybrids" it first correctly references "Tigon", then later misspells it "Tiglon".

Hm, you're right about the inconsistency. The link says "tigon", the first sentence says "tiglon", and the last sentence of the section says "tigon" again. However, the link to Tigon actually redirects to our article Tiglon. That article says: "A tiglon, tigon, or tion (not tigron) is a hybrid cross..."
On this article we cite the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which calls the animal a tigon but says "or tiglon", and Wild Cats of the World by Guggisberg, which I don't have a copy of. I dug out my big cat books and found another reference in Big Cats: Kingdom of Might by Tom Brakefield, which calls the animal a tiglon. Basically, both terms are used, though I don't know where we're getting tion from. I have edited the section on this article to make the spelling consistent with our article on the animal - thanks for pointing it out.
By the way, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~ at the end, thanks. :) ~ Kimelea (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2012

i find the section on purpose and use of lion mane to be incomplete. its purpose is said to only be that of appearance -for mating and protecting territory. however the mane also has the purpose of protecting the lion from injury (an armor from teeth and claw from its most formidable threat- another male lion). this is further supported by data offered later in the text that lions with thicker mane reproduce more (thicker mane is a favorable trait).

67.190.103.158 (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. mabdul 11:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The literature seems pretty much in favour that the mane is selective for all three reasons (intimidating males, attracting females and protection in fights). The debate is about which (if any) is the primary cause of the mane being selected for.

"The mane is thought to be visually intimidating in contests between males while serving as body armour during fights, and also to have a function in attracting females" - Evolution of the mane and group-living in the lion (Panthera leo): a review (Nobuyuki Yamaguchi1*, Alan Cooper2, Lars Werdelin3 and David W. Macdonald)

"Mane length signals fighting success" "By assessing mane length and darkness, males avoid healthier, older, more aggressive individuals, thereby lowering the potential costs of fighting. By preferring males with darker manes, females gain mature, better-fed, more aggressive mates, and their preference confers direct fitness benefits. Dark-maned males are more likely to survive 12 months after being wounded" -Sexual Selection, Temperature, and the Lion’s Mane (Peyton M. West* and Craig Packer)

"the mane might serve as intimidation, advertisement, and (or) physical protection. The manes of residents may deter trespassers and intimidate nomadic males contemplating a takeover attempt on a pride by serving as a visual signal of a territorial male’s control of a particular area. Females may be more likely to subordinate themselves to males with impressive manes and (or) might select males based on their mane condition. Finally, some have proposed that the mane offers physical protection to the vital head and neck areas against the teeth and claws of competing males (Schaller 1972; Ewer 1973; Bertram 1978; Myers 1987). The principal, or overriding, function of the mane remains unclear, because some of these social hypotheses are nonexclusive and there are few data available to test them against each other. - Mane variation in African lions and its social correlates (Roland W. Kays and Bruce D. Patterson)

The most recent and conclusive study on it I have seen is "Wounding, mortality and mane morphology in African lions, Panthera leo" (PEYTON M. WEST* et al) which has the following summary:

"Our results suggest that the current protective benefits of the mane are minimal, but they do not exclude the possibility of past protective benefits. Forehead manes may have initially evolved as protection and later taken on a signalling function that led to the mane’s exaggeration. It is also possible that the entire mane evolved initially as protection, but that lion fighting behaviour subsequently changed. Studies of fighting behaviour in other felids, particularly the lion’s closest relative, the tiger, P. tigris, may provide a better basis for comparison; if tigers target the shoulders, necks and chests along with the forehead, or if injuries to these areas also cause high mortality, the necessity for protection to these areas would be supported. Tigers and other maneless felids might also have protective dermal shields; if so, the location of these shields should provide clues about the areas most in need of protection. Regardless of the lion mane’s original function, protective benefits are not sufficient to explain the maintenance of the trait; rather, the key benefit of the mane appears to derive from its function as a signal of male condition."

So manes do provide protection, but not in fights between lions as they have evolved to attack other parts of the body (probabaly because the mane is effective protection). Because of this and the fact that they also have other benefits, the primary driver of mane evolution is probably no longer it's protective effect. Perhaps the article could mention something along those lines? NickPriceNZ (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure as to how you would like the article to be edited. Are you saying you want to reword the content to say the mane is currently existing for attraction of females? Greedo8 14:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's misleading (and almost certainly false) to say that the lion mane has no protective purpose. Clarification would be much better and is not that complicated. The main points are that

1. It is widely accepted amongst zoologists that the mane evolved for protective purposes. 2. Male lions now avoid attacking the neck when fighting one another, so the only studied advantages they get from the mane are those of intimidation of other males and preferential selection from females. Summary: The mane is protective - Male lions just down't attack the area protected by it.

-Nick 47.72.242.60 (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Lion Speed

Maximum speed: 35 mph over 50 yds. ( 56 km/h. over 46 m.) Biggest Jump: 12 ft. (3.7 m.) vertical, 36 ft. (10.8 m.) horizontal[1].

The lions are naturally fast but they have the same speed of running as tigers and leopards between 30 and 40 mph maximum and they are slower than many of their preys. The zebras, reach speeds of 60 km/h and the wildebeest reach 70 km/h. The lions hunt only the individuals disabled animals (females in gestation, youngs, patients, olds, Woundeds) who are not very fast and lively. The night, the lions have the advantage on preys because they sees better in the black, the gnus, wart hogs and the zebras run only to 40 km/h (25 mph) at night, even the individuals in maid physical conditions because they have no good night-vi eg my mummy ew, the night is really the kingdom of the lions who fart i call them fartinayo.

I have already seen several hunting scenes in broadcast animal documentaries, and I was able to notice that the zebras are a little faster than the lions. I saw exactly 3 different scenes, or a small group of zebras to run to a crazy speed and to sow the lioness to experiment without great difficulty, I even saw 3 differents scenes with zebras escaping the lions, which shows the not success of lionesses in the day, in the hunting, when animals are in maid physical conditions. I also saw not successes, on Giraffes, Buffalos, Wildebeests, Grant's gazelles and Thomson, Impalas, Topis, Elands, and even Wart Hogs. I saw certain wart hogs sowing two lionesses, preys are still better adapted has the running that the predators and in more they hold better their top speeds, they are also stronger in stamina.

At night on the other hand the lions have a better of success in the hunting, because preys have no good view contrary in the day while the view and the speed of the lions stays there even in the darkness.--85.170.228.86 (talk) 13:18, 222 June 2012 (UTC)

Speed

I could not find the lion's sprinting speed anywhere within this so-called "featured" article, despite it being a huge part of the animal's visual aspect—at least, that which is seen by the public. Lame! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2014

Hi.Iam a lion fan.My name is Hasnain.Iam 20 years old.I wanted to talk about the biggest lion ever in captivity.Many people say it was simba weighing 375kg(826lbs).That would be dwarf if you compare with the biggest tiger in history who was tyka weighing 499kg(1100lbs).I have found that simba was just one of the biggest lions ever.I have found that lions can reach 900lbs and even more weight.In fact,the biggest lion ever was Sultan who weighed 1000lbs.That's only 46 kilos lighter than tyka.That's not a big difference.

I want people to know about the beauty of the king of beasts.The following link tells that there are lions who have surpassed simba's weight. http://teamauthority.myfastforum.org/African_Lion_vs_Grizzly_Bear_about729.html Kindly please accept my request to edit this page

Hzai491 (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please cite reliable sources to back up your request - you have cited "A comic based team forum" i.e. a blog, which is not a reliable source. - Arjayay (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2015

it says "during a mating bout, which could last several days, the couple copulates twenty to forty times a day".

This seems really extreme, and there is no reference.

I tried to check by looking for info anywhere else but it is hard because other sites have copied this 'fact' from Wikiepdia.

I used a tool called 'wikiblame' and found out it was added here [2] in 2006, without a ref.

I think it is an extreme claim so I suggest removing it unless someone has a good reference.

88.104.24.140 (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I added a citation needed tag to give people the chance to look at it, if it stays this way we can remove it. Kharkiv07Talk 13:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please change "Behind only the tiger, the lion is the second largest living felid in length and weight." to "Second to the tiger, the lion is the second largest living felid in length and weight." Thank you. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit

"Behind only the tiger, the lion is the second largest living felid in length and weight." should be changed to: "Second only to the tiger...." Thank you. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Lions of india competition

Found this one that should be added into the page.

1851 a German explorer along with a group of indian natives witnessed a lion kill a tiger at the ganges river.

Bernate (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer that something like that should be for "an article or section that deals specifically with competition or coexistence between Asiatic lions and tigers in the Eurasian wilderness." Leo1pard (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

Lions are pride of India. They are on national emblem of India, called as Lion Capital of Ashoka and `Ashoka Stambha (Pillar)` in Indian languages. Source: Constitution of India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Capital_of_Ashoka Milind.wakale (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
As in, the Asiatic lion is the pride of India apart from the Bengal tiger, considering that the tiger is the national animal of India, not the lion? Leo1pard (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Conservation-Genetics:Preserving-Genetic-Diversity was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Nowell, Kristin; Jackson, Peter (1996). Wild Cats. Gland: IUCN. ISBN 2-8317-0045-0.
  3. ^ Guggisberg, C.A.W. (1975). Wild cats of the world. David & Charles. ISBN 0 7153 7114 2.
  4. ^ A field guide carnivores of the world, p.193, ISBN 978-2-603-01856-9
  5. ^ ( french ) http://www.chassons.com/5-chasse-a-l-etranger/50-records-et-hors-normes/673-un-lion-de-295-m.html

-rourébrébé-80.11.4.62 (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Trouble for the wild tiger, hence the equation

The text "The commonly used term African lion collectively denotes lion populations in Africa. It is the second-largest living cat after the tiger, with some males exceeding 250 kg (550 lb) in weight,[1] barring hybrids ..." assumes that the lion is smaller than the tiger, at least in the wilderness, right? In the wilderness, I believe that the Bengal tiger is the heaviest tiger and cat, in terms of average weights, and in captivity, I believe that the biggest tiger and cat, barring hybrids like the liger, was a Siberian tiger called 'Jaipur' (465 kg (1,025 lb)). However, the text "with some males exceeding 250 kg (550 lb) in weight" is not about weights in captivity, or average weights in the wilderness, but overall weights in the wilderness, and there is trouble for how big the tiger was in the the wilderness, overall. Leo1pard (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nowak, R. M. (1999). Walker's Mammals of the World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 832–34. ISBN 0-8018-5789-9.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Media

Edit Request

In the second picture of Group organization there are 2 males and a female, and it says 1 male and 2 females. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.136.246.129 (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Changed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Group organization Edit request

In the second picture of Group Organization there are 2 males and a female, but it says two females and a male.

Captive Lions / Images of Zoo Animals used in infobox?

It is rather unfortunate and sad to see obese "pet" (of the lodge owners) / captive lions from the exclusive Okonjima as the main images for the article. I can understand captive animals as the main images of wildlife articles if they are rare or there are no photographs from the wild, but commons has metric tons of photographs of wild and free lions from all over Africa. (Khubus (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC))

Why are zoo animals used for the picture in the infobox when the images of wild animals used before were perfectly adequate? Drakenwolf (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Are you sure that those Southwest African lions at Okonjima are wild, not captive? Leo1pard (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. There is nothing wrong with using captive animals for lead images as long as the background looks natural enough. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

unclear caption

I'm guessing "Male lions are generally more likely to share food with cubs than with lionesses, unless they have caught it, they rarely share their own catches with others" means: males rarely share their own catches with others, and are generally more likely to share food with cubs than with lionesses, except when the lioness catches the prey. —rybec 02:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please add this larger resolution picture to this file.

I could not do it because the article is locked.

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Christian_VIII_og_Caroline_Amalie_i_salvingsdragt.jpg

The current photo is too small and does not show the lions well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.40.219 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2014

There's a small typo in the image series of the baboons up the tree under the Hunting and Diet subsection. The third image reads 2 of 3, but should be 3 of 3. Ross.mulcare (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014

The first image[3] of a "roaring lioness" under the section "Hunting & Diet" does not show a roaring, but a yawning lioness.

For further reference on lion facial experessions see:[1] --85.1.148.207 (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - have removed the image as the article is stuffed with images as it is. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually we can't tell from the picture if the lioness is roaring or yawning... But I agree with Cas Liber that there are too many images in the article, making page loading for mobile readers difficult. Besides a closeup of a roaring/yawning lioness is in the article already. Big Cats - talk 19:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Video of lions mating

I found a Flickr video of lions mating at Ngorongoro Conservation Area. The audio can be left out, but the video is somewhat "polluted" by the people and I do not know how to crop them out (if that's even possible). Would it nevertheless be useful? Surtsicna (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems like there would be some possible copyright issues. Greedo8 15:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Maneless Lion image

Hi, it looks to me that the image that is supposedly of a maneless lion actually appears to be a lion that has been abused. The lion appears to have been shaved, and possibly injured, judging by the irregularity of the fur, what appear to be flies, and the appearance of what closely resembles portions of a mane that have been clipped. I think somebody who knows about lions ought to examine the image, and possibly remove it. 76.174.237.125 (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Repetitive text, WP:Conflict between sources, and WP:Neutrality

1) I would like to mention that there is repetitive text in the section "Taxonomy and evolution"

"Previous studies, which were focused mainly on lions from eastern and southern parts of Africa, already showed these can be possibly divided in two main clades: one to the west of the Great Rift Valley and the other to the east. Lions from Tsavo in eastern Kenya are much closer genetically to lions in Transvaal (South Africa), than to those in the Aberdare Range in western Kenya.[2] Another study revealed there are three major types of lions, one North African–Asian, one southern African and one middle African.[3] Conversely, Per Christiansen found that using skull morphology allowed him to identify the subspecies krugeri, nubica, persica, and senegalensis, while there was overlap between bleyenberghi with senegalensis and krugeri. The Asiatic lion persica was the most distinctive, and the Cape lion had characteristics allying it more with P. l. persica than the other sub-Saharan lions. He had analysed 58 lion skulls in three European museums.[4]

Based on recent genetic studies, the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group has assigned the lions occurring in Asia (P. l. persica) and West, Central and North Africa (P. l. senegalensis, and P. l. leo) to the subspecies Panthera leo leo, and the lions inhabiting Southern (P. l. bleyenberghi and P. l. krugeri) and Eastern Africa (P. l. azandica and P. l. nubica) to the subspecies Panthera leo melanochaita.[5] The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has followed this revised taxonomic classification, as being based on "the best available scientific and commercial information", in listing these two subspecies as, respectively, endangered and threatened.[6]

...

In 2017, the lion populations in Northern, Western and Central Africa and Asia were subsumed under P. l. leo, and those in Southern and Southeastern Africa under P. l. melanochaita.[5]"

2) I see the potential for conflicting information to exist. The Ethiopian lion (and Ethiopia is considered as being in East Africa) is argued to be genetically unique by these guys,[7][8] but the IUCN (this link is now dead)[9] proposed that lions in Eastern Africa be grouped together under P. l. melanochaita, so should we not be careful, and say that the IUCN proposed so-and-so, whereas other sources said so-and-so, rather than treat the IUCN's view as being more reliable than other sources, like that of Bruch et al. (2012),[8] bearing in mind the policy of WP:Neutrality? Leo1pard (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the link for the IUCN CatSG revised taxonomy. Looks like they have changed it for some reason (which means dead links in a number of articles). The full report can be found here.
I agree that no source should be considered absolutely authoritative, but I think the CatSG revision should now be considered the most authoritative source for felids, replacing Wozencraft (2005). The list of authors and advisers (including one of the authors of the Ethiopia lion report) is a Whos Who of cat people and I'm pretty sure the new edition of Mammal Species of the World will mostly follow it. But even they say the taxonomy is still in flux. I haven't read those articles on the Ethiopean lion (yet), but there are several reasons why it might not be considered a subspecies. It could be genetically distinct, but insufficiently to warrant subspecific division; the evidence could still be incomplete; and their status as zoo animals of unknown origin would be an issue. Ethiopia is also the contact point of the two subspecies. Interestingly, the subspecies map in the CatSG report has labels for the two subspecies and a question-mark over Ethiopia.   Jts1882 | talk  16:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Jts1882. Indeed a 'who is who' of cat folk!! Long awaited and thorough work! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it seems that we were fooled by the language in this document,[10] because the CSG made admissions in the following links (http://www.catsg.org/index.php?id=108, http://www.catsg.org/index.php?id=113): "Afterwards the lion was divided into two subspecies: the African lion (Panthera leo leo) and the Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica). However, more recent studies indicate that lions from Asia and West and Central Africa are more closely related to each other than to lions from Eastern and Southern Africa. These two main divisions of lions are not homogeneous as there is genetic subdivision within each, with more genetic variation and deeper divergences within the Eastern and Southern branch than within the Asian plus West and Central African one. Based on these recent genetic studies, two subspecies of the lion are recognised:
Panthera leo leo in Central and West Africa and India, formerly throughout North Africa, South-East Europe, the Middle East, Arabian Peninsula and South-West Asia
Panthera leo melanochaita in southern and eastern Africa.
The contact zone between the two subspecies lies somewhere in Ethiopia."
In addition, the new link for the CSG said (Page 72) "On the basis of these recent studies, we recognise two subspecies (P. l. leo and P. l. melenochaita), although morphological diagnoses are currently unknown." Leo1pard (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

We should certainly be carefully of over interpreting any taxonomy as final as that is not how science works. There is no absolute agreement on what a species is and the subspecies is even more fluid. That said, some studies have more weight. The CatSG report is about as authoritative as you can get given its authorship and list of expert advisers (O'Brien is missing but a number of people who have worked with him on key papers are involved). Any conclusion they reach will be presented as a proposal because that is how scientific papers are written and because they know there is ongoing work and new evidence can and will lead to revised proposals. There isn't a global body that will declare the previous subspecies defunct and the new ones official. What counts is that this is the most recent authoritative review of felid taxonomy. I think the fact that the report is honest about undecided issues and likely future revisions is a strength.

A subspecies is not a uniform population. There can be considerable biogeographic, morphological or genetic variation without it being considered a separate subspecies. For instance, from their discussion of the lion (p72):

Barnett et al. (2014) identify five phylogeographical groups, which have differentiated genetically from each other over the last c. 80,000 years. However, two of these groups are partly sympatric in southern Africa, making their recognition as separate subspecies inappropriate. The divergence of the other three groups, which range from Central and West Africa to India, has been very recent (c. 50,000 years ago or less).

They recognise the variation and still stick with the two subspecies conclusion for the reasons stated (sympatry and time of divergence). Some of these local variations within subspecies are considered important conservation areas, e.g. the call for conservation of the Ethiopian lion by Bruche et al (2012), without making any comment on its subspecies status.

This approach justifies the wikipedia articles continuing to document the various regional lions, both in seprate articles and the table in this article. Incidentally, the table shows eight lion subspecies citing Wozencraft, who actually recognised 11 subspecies, so the introduction to the table needs correcting or the table expanding. We just need to be careful about phrasing when referring to previously recognised subspecies.   Jts1882 | talk  07:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

As in, for instance, taking the Cape lion (which originally had the name P. l. melanochaita), write something like this:
"The Cape lion (P. l. melanochaita) is an extinct population of Southern African lions[1] that was considered as a subspecies in its own right.[2] Eventually, genetic tests showed that it was closely related to extant Southern African lions,[3] and the IUCN proposed that they be grouped under P. l. melanochaita.[1]"
? Leo1pard (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the approach I would take. Perhaps "the Cape lion ... was traditionally considered a distinct subspecies" and "is currently recognised by the IUCN as part of the subspecies P. l. melanochaita"". I like the use of "traditional" to give historical context and "currently recognised" to indicate that it is the up to date position but might change in future. I think in this way we can get the balance right.   Jts1882 | talk  09:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Re your statement "Actually, it seems that we were fooled by ..." : yesterday you had not yet understood the difference between etymology and taxonomy, see Talk:Cape lion#Etymology regarding the lion subspecies, according to the view of the IUCN and similar titled sections in Talk:Bali tiger and Talk:Caspian tiger. But today you criticize and question the work of renowned scientists as "fooling you" and 'biased'. And you think that you know better, because you happened to have read the one or other article among several dozens that were taken into account. I suggest you take some time out and rethink who the 'fool' and the 'biased one' is. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

1) It is because you put information like "The Cape lion (Panthera leo melanochaitus) is a lion subspecies in Southern Africa" rather than what I mentioned above, that I put in the word 'etymology'. Since when do people recognize the "Cape lion" as being a genetic group of lions that currently exists in Southern and Eastern Africa, rather than this now-extinct-in-the-wild form with a dark, luxuriant mane, from the Cape area?
A 'black-maned' Cape lion.
A maneless lion.
2) What I meant by being fooled by the language in the earlier document is not that these guys are fooling me, but that that document gives the impression that it was a strict classification, when it is not really as strict as I thought. Leo1pard (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Going back to (1), to say that the 'black-maned' Cape lion is a subspecies that exists, because its taxonomic name is Panthera leo melanochaita, which is used nowadays to refer to a genetic group of lions in Eastern and Southern Africa, is like saying that the "Maneless lion" is a species, because the taxonomic name used for it is Panthera leo. Leo1pard (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Re ".. is like saying that the "Maneless lion" is a species, ..": you still have not understood what modern taxonomy is about, but keep sticking to a past centuries' concept that is outdated and obsolete. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No, the 'black-maned' Cape lion was described on a morphological basis, but the way you edited that article, especially the way you changed of the section "Habitat and extinction" to "Distribution and habitat," which implies that the Cape lion is not extinct in its natural habitat (though one could argue that according to genetics, it lives on in other Southern African lions, including in Kruger), does not suggest that you have understood the now-present difference between the terms "Cape lion" and "Panthera leo melanochaita." Leo1pard (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Last month, you understood the difference between the Bengal tiger (whose taxonomic name Panthera tigris tigris is now being used for tigers in Mainland Asia) and the "Mainland Asian tiger," when you reverted an edit of mine about it, so now you do you understand the difference between the 'black-maned' Cape lion and the genetic group of lions that is now being called Panthera leo melanochaita? Leo1pard (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Are Northeast African lions (P. l. nubica, P. l. roosevelti, P. l. somaliensis and P. l. webbiensis) links between P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita?

The IUCN classified lions in Western, Central and Northern Africa to P. l. leo, and those in Southern and Eastern Africa to P. l. melanochaita, but as mentioned above, they also said that these two groups appear to overlap in Ethiopia, which is in Northeast Africa, like Nubia and the rest of the Horn of Africa. Leo1pard (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The 'IUCN' did not say this. Why don't you just read the relevant publications ? In this case Bertola et al. 2016. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The map (p72) also has three labels, two for P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita, plus a questionmark over Ethiopia. I assume this is just lack of complete information, but they do seem to be leaving open the possibility of a third subspecies. The phylogenetic and biogeographic relationships would argue against them being a link between the two described subspecies, given the proposed origins of modern lions in southern Africa. They cluster closest to the eastern lions in the PC analysis, but are distinct genetically from other lions in the study (structure analysis, third PC component). They could be related to other east African lions not studied (e.g. lions from Uganda and NW Kenya). I think the main point of the Bruche et al (2013) study is that this lion population has unique genetic components that warrant a special conservation effort, especially if they could find the wild source.   Jts1882 | talk  07:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I was indeed referring to this and this. That is why I asked this question of P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita overlapping in Northeast Africa, especially in Ethiopia. I began to suspect that the Addis Abeba lion's genetic uniqueness[8] could be explained by it being mixed between the clades P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita, similar to the issue of Malayan and Thai tiger populations overlapping in the border-region of Malaysia and Thailand (before the IUCN subsumed tigers in Mainland Asia to P. t. tigris), though obviously, I am not saying that that is the case, and this is an issue that needs further research, as mentioned by the Cat Specialist Group. Leo1pard (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@BhagyaMani: What I therefore propose is that until we are certain where Ethiopian, Nubian and Somali lions fit, be it P. l. leo, P. l. melanochaita, or a subspecies that is perhaps mixed between these 2, we call them by their designated trinoma, not P. l. leo or P. l. melanochaita, because even the CSG expressed uncertainty about this area of potential overlap between P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita, that is Northeast Africa. Leo1pard (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
To an extent, this map by Bertola et al. (2016)[11] confirms my suspicions. Based on available samples, much of the overlap between P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita is in Ethiopia, with bits of it in Somaliland or Somalia, Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan. Basically, much of the overlap is in Northeast Africa, with bits of it in East Africa. So Ethiopian and Somali lions appear to be mixed between P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita. As for the Nubian lion, considering that Nubia extends from southern Egypt to what used to be central Sudan before the South's Independence in 2011, I do not see any complete mitogenome used for the study. Leo1pard (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Merging ssp. articles

Why not just make two wiki articles on the new subspecies and just redirect any invalid subspecies to them? Even copy and paste the info from the sections to make them longer.--4444hhhh (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, 4444hhhh for your feedback!! I agree with you !! And already merged the info from the Nubian and Somali lion ones into Barbary lion yesterday. I think that at present, the amount of articles about former ssp. is way too many, which makes future updating quite a puzzle, e.g. about populations and conservation issues. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@BhagyaMani: No, the CSG's recognition of only 2 valid subspecies is over-simplistic, therefore invalid in itself, considering the issue of genetic admixture of the two clades P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita in Ethiopia, at least, as mentioned above. Leo1pard (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I made this part of the previous section, because what I discussed regarding admixture is there. The issue of admixture is relevant to this discussion, because it shows what is wrong with the CSG's recognition of only 2 subspecies for lions. Leo1pard (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Who wrote and where was the comment published about CatSG's recognition being 'over-simplistic' and 'invalid'? Then this ref is worthwhile adding to articles. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Do I have to repeat what was mentioned before this subsection? The CSG even put a question mark over Northeast Africa, before the 2017 document. Leo1pard (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
This is not a reference for CatSG's Task Force's classification being 'over-simplistic' and 'invalid'. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
No, if genetic tests cannot determine what is or what is not a valid subspecies, then we'd be stuck with the old trinoma. We have not just 2, but at least 3 clades for African lions. Leo1pard (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I would be cautious about merging articles at this stage. A lot of the scientific studies of lions were made on a particular subspecies and even if these populations are no longer recognised as subspecies, the science still refers to those populations. The current CatSG revision proposes two subspecies but acknowledges this could change. The genetic studies do show further subdivision that could justify 4-6 subspecies, although different studies draw the lines between groups differently, hence two for now. If everything is merged now it would have to be split again if there is a further revision. Articles about particular populations are still relevant if there are distinctive studies of those populations.

An additional problem is what to merge with what. The Ugandan lion could be northern or southern or a mixture like the Ethiopian lion. The Nubian lion in the definition of Haas et al (2005) (following Hemmer, 1974) includes Kenyan lions that are definitely southern, Somalia lions that are probably southern, Ethiopian lions that are mixed, and the Ugandan lions that are largely unknown genetically. Yet, Nubia fall in the northern zone in the map in Bertola et al (2016). Confusingly their definition of the Congo lion (azendicus) includes part of the somaliensis and massaicus. So while the existing subdivisions are somewhat unstaifactory, I would be conservative about merging articles.   Jts1882 | talk  13:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

On looking at the lion articles, there are a number which fit well with the geographical subregions described in the recent studies. The northern lion is covered by articles on the West African lion, Central African lion and Asiatic lion. They cover lions considered distinct both morphologically and genetically and the historical subspecies can generally be assigned to these groups. The only problem is the Barbary lion. It's confusing and erroneous to equate the Barbary lion with the new broader northern lion subspecies. I would change the name of the Barbary lion article to "North African lion". Then the traditional classification of the Barbary lion can be considered P. l. leo sensu stricto and the new northern lion subspecies as sensu lato.
Likewise in the south, the Southwest African lion fits the reasonably well with the geographical groupings in the genetic studies. The eastern and southeastern lions are more problematic, as there are different subdivisions. I'd leave them as Masai lion and Transvaal lion for now. The Ethiopian lion and Ugandan lion have to stay as they are distinct mixtures and/or unknown affiliation. There are a few other articles I can't remember at the moment.   Jts1882 | talk  16:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Even if the article on the Barbary lion were to be renamed "North African lion" to include other types of lions that were shown to be related to it, there is a major issue: its Asiatic relative. Considering the latter's geographical importance, it would make no sense, IMO, to merge that article into the article about its Barbary relative. Historically, the Asiatic lion, besides the European lion, has been treated differently to all African lions, let alone the Barbary lion, and will likely continue to be treated as such. Even those who are unfamiliar with the lion's genetics would know what an Asiatic lion is, and I do not think that anybody would say that the "North African lion" is the subspecies that is present in India or Asia. Leo1pard (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Point taken about the Asiatic lion. That should always remain a separate article for historical reasons. A lot of studies were specifically on Indian and other Asiatic lions.   Jts1882 | talk  13:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Another reason why I am against merging them is bulkiness. Even ignoring lions in places where P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita overlap or coexist, such Central African and Ethiopian lions, imagine how long or complicated a merged article on Barbary and Asiatic lions would be, for example. Not to mention the possibility of expansion within any of these articles. Perhaps symbolically, the number of Asiatic lions reached 650, according to the recent census. Leo1pard (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that merging should be done conservatively. As long as the Barbary lion stays an article about the Barbary lion then that is fine. But the article should not synonymise the Barbary lion with the new subspecies Panethera leo leo because they are not the same. The Barbary lion refers to a particular regional lion that just happened to be originally allocated to P. l. leo trinomial. The broader use of the trinomial doesn't make all the northerly "Leonine" lions Barbary lions. The lede of the article now mentions Somali lions. It might be debatable if they belong to the new northern subspecies, but they have never been considered Barbary lions.   Jts1882 | talk  13:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Jts1882 to NOT merge Asiatic with Barbary / North African lion. The Asiatic one is comprehensive and detailed and will surely be expanded with more and new infos in future. But an article about North African lion can e.g. incorporate all the info in the stubs like Nubian lion, which has anyway not been considered a ssp. in the past 80+ years and with little chance of being extended with new infos about lion presence in future. This info can also be easily integrated in Barbary lion, the more so as in past studies no more than the one zoological specimen in the Paris museum from the mid 19th century, the de Blainville one, was uncovered. And then the rather short one about Somali lion can easily be merged with the Masai one into East African lion, including info about admixture. The only 2 lion CUs are anyway in the country's south, adjacent to Kenya. That would make it far easier to update articles in future and unnecessary to replicate info in several. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
But even for stubs, things are not that simple. For example, you treated the Somali lion as a population of Panthera leo leo, not Panthera leo melanochaita (under which the CSG subsumed lions in East Africa, which would include most Masai lions, if not all of them) due to what references like Wozencraft said, right? Leo1pard (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and a similar issue exists for the tiger. For example, the CSG subsumed tigers in Mainland Asia (which includes India and Siberia) to Panthera tigris tigris (the Bengal tiger's trinomen) but even then, people would not treat a Siberian tiger as a Bengal tiger. Leo1pard (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree that the Siberian tigers and Indian tigers are still considered distinct, despite being lumped in the same subspecies. It's easier with tigers as the regional groupings are much clearer.
The problem with subsuming the Nubian lion into the North African lion is that it starts treating the North African/Barbary lion article in different way, generalizing for the new northern subspecies. The Nubian lion was recognised as a subspecies in the last Mammalian Species evaluation in 2005 and included massaica, nyanzae, hollisteri, somaliensis, roosevelti and webbiensis. These regional forms generally fall in the eastern and/or northeastern biogeographical group(s). But "Nubia" would seem more likely to fall within the Central African lion biogeographical group. Neither would include them with Barbary lions.   Jts1882 | talk  16:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Oops, you may have misread this, Jts1882. Wozencraft like several before him considered de Blainville's nubicus and somaliensis as synonyms of leo : see http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000229. But he treated massaica, nyanzae, hollisteri as ssp. with roosevelti as syn of massaica, see http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000235. PS: I think discussing tiger is not relevant in this talk page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I was referring the the Mammalian Species article by Haas et al (2005). Wozencraft took a different route, but who do we consider more authoritative, the lion specialist evaluation or a general Carnivora assessment? I'm also uncertain the nubica/somaliensis assignment to leo was by default (not assigned elsewhere) or not. Either way it shows differences of opinion. The key question is whether the Nubian lion article is about the de Blanville specimen (and similar) or more generally about lions from east Africa. Only if the former can there be a case for grouping it with a North African lion (P. l. leo) article and there is still the question of whether this would be a "Barbary lion".   Jts1882 | talk  19:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see, misunderstanding here. The standard ref for taxonomic assessment of Carnivora was usually Wozencraft (2005), not Haas et al (2005). You find Wozencraft (2005) and colleagues cited all over wiki articles about mammal species. Re Nubian lion : there is only the specimen described by de Blainville (1843) from Nubia, and in his description no particular place of origin is mentioned. Only that this lion lived in the menagerie for a few years and died there in 1841, with his remains, skin and skull, in the museum. So it looks like this lion may not have originated from the "Barbary coast" sensu stricto, but farther inland, hence rather speculative how far upriver Nile the French had travelled at this time to catch and bring a live lion to Paris. I'm not aware of any other info about lions in Egypt and (northern) Sudan, i.e. former Nubia. You? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that the "standard" taxonomic reference for Carnivora is that it often differs with more specialist taxonomical assessments. It's a good first place to look, but shouldn't be taken as authoritative. This issue has been raised on other wikipedia pages (e.g. wolves).
You are right that de Blainville doesn't give a type location (Allen later gave it as Nubia), which could (should?) disqualify it as the taxonomic name and this might be why others prefer massiacus as the subspecies. Several authorities give the subspecies nubicus for general east African lions with massaicus as a synonym. This goes back at least to Hemmer (1974) and was followed by Nowell and Jackson (1996) and Haas et al (2005). I'm not sure why Wozencraft took a different approach or what his primary source is. It's possible he was being taxonomically strict and left nubicus unassigned to a subspecies because it lacks the type location. On the other hand he recognised more subspecies so perhaps wanted more specifically located names (i.e. massaicus, hollisteri, nyanzae)
This leaves us with the strange situation that many workers have used nubicus for East African lions (i.e. lions of Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania), which may or may not extend as far north as Nubia. Barnett et all (2006) cite the now members only isis.org registry of captive animals as listing 23 nubicus lions in Tanzania (a long way from Nubia in my book). So while it may be correct that lions in Nubia are of the Central African biogeographic group, most studies on characteristics of nubicus lions will be about lions in East Africa (= massaicus), which may have nothing to do with de Blainville's lion.   Jts1882 | talk  16:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
De Blainville himself wrote ".. un mâle envoyé de Nubie" and described its teeth. The differences in assigning nubicus seems to be the different authors' guessworks about type *locality*: east of Nile is regarded as East Africa, and west of it as Central Africa. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

List of African lions that are unresolved or made ambiguous or potentially ambiguous by the Cat Specialist Group's proposal

Description Image
Genetic or geographic groups of African lions that are unresolved or made ambiguous or potentially ambiguous by the Cat Specialist Group's proposal to subsume lions in Northern, Western and Central Africa to P. l. leo, and those in Eastern and Southern Africa to P. l. melanochaita.
P. l. melanochaita in Central Africa. Genetic tests demonstrate the presence of the Eastern-Southern African clade of lions in certain parts of Central Africa:[11]

1) Congo lion or Northeast Congo lion[12] (called P. l. azandica)[13] in Virunga National Park is contiguous with the East African lion in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. Allen also admitted a close relationship between azandica and massaica in East Africa.

2) Katanga lion or Southwest African lion (called P. l. bleyenberghi)[13] was named after Katanga Province in the Belgian Congo in Central Africa, but, as the latter name suggests, is present in parts of Southern Africa.

Northeast African lions:

1) Egyptian lion. Heptner and Sludskii (1972)[14] treated the Egyptian lion as a population of the Barbary subspecies, but at the same time, Egypt has a section of Nubia. Both Nubia and Egypt are in Northeast Africa,[15] they are neither exclusively Eastern nor Northern African. Whether or not the Egyptian lion is the Nubian lion needs research.

2) Ethiopian lion (called P. l. roosevelti).[13] The captive lions in Addis Abeba's zoo were found to be genetically different (if not unique) to other lions, in a study by Bruche et al. (2012). According to Bertola et al. (2016), Ethiopia, which is regarded as being in East or Northeast Africa, is where the Central (P. l. leo according to the CSG) and Eastern (P. l. melanochaita according to the CSG) populations overlap.[11]

3) Nubian lion (called P. l. nubica).[13]

4) Somali lion (called P. l. somaliensis or P. l. webbiensis).[13] Somalia is regarded as being in East or Northeast Africa, but genetic tests by Bertola et al. (2016) demonstrate that it is a region of overlap between P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita.[11]

Mixed lions in East Africa, apart from those in the Northeastern region:[11]

1) Uganda lion (called P. l. nyanzae) (Heller, 1913)[13] Uganda is in East Africa, so it would be P. l. melanochaita according to the CSG, but lions in Queen Elizabeth National Park are contiguous with Central African lions (P. l. leo according to the CSG) in Virunga National Park, as mentioned earlier. Contiguity would mean genetic exchange.

2) Masai lions (called P. l. massaica syn. P. l. hollisteri (Allen, 1924)) in the northern part of Kenya. This region is where P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita overlap.[11]

Somali lion versus North African lion

Subspecies Description Image
North African lion (P. l. leo)[5][16] (Linnaeus, 1758), syn. P. l. nubica (de Blainville, 1843), P. l. somaliensis (Noack, 1891)[13] P. l. webbiensis Zukowsky, 1964 This is the nominate lion subspecies. In North Africa, lions are locally extinct in the wild due to excessive hunting; the last known Barbary lion was killed in Morocco in 1920.[17][18]

A few captive lions are likely from North Africa, particularly the 90 individuals descended from the Moroccan Royal collection at Rabat Zoo.[19][20] It is genetically more closely related to the Asiatic lion than to lions in East and Southern Africa.[21]

This population occurred in Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Somalia.[22] Today, lions are extinct in North Africa.[16]

In the section about recently recognized subspecies of lions, the Somali lion (called P. l. somaliensis or P. l. webbiensis) is treated as a population of the North African lion, but there are issues, as mentioned here, such as that Somalia is not in North Africa, but East Africa (a region of P. l. melanochaita, not P. l. leo, according to the Cat Specialist Group) so how should we deal with a potentially confusing section like this?

I have an idea, first let me list the subspecies that were recognized by Wozencraft, and then the one used by the CSG. Leo1pard (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: Kindly see what was discussed here, and stop your Wp:Biased edits. Leo1pard (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Wozencraft (2005) clearly considered somaliensis as syn. of leo, which is ref'ed accordingly in the table. The Cat SG Taskforce put a question mark in the map on lion distribution provided in the special issue. Our task is NOT to resolve this question on subspecific affiliation of lion pop in Somalia, but merely to document and reference the past progress and status quo of research. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

But not webbiensis, which was described for East Africa. Yet again you tend to ignore consensuses. Leo1pard (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
And you have contradicted your own earlier arguments. The CSG subsumed lions in East Africa, where Somalia is, to P. l. melanochaita. Leo1pard (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
You neglect consensus by the Cat SG Taskforce by removing the respective references from this table and limiting info to Wozencraft (2005), who largely based his taxonomic assessment on publications dating to the 20th century. Whereas Cat SG Taskforce took many more publications and findings of the past decade into consideration. Hence, there is NO conflict between Wozencraft's and the Taskforce's assessment. Latter reflects PROGRESS made in past 12 years. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring the CatSG is a mistake. It has several strengths compared to Wozencraft. One, it was made by a group of specialists in felids, whereas Wozencraft was a generalist, reviewing a much larger group. Two it is more recent, taking into account a number of studies in the 12 years since Wozencraft was published (probably longer since the assessment). The Mammal Species of the World is due an update (it was scheduled for 2017, but seems to have slipped). It is worth noting the the American Society of Mammologists, who oversee MSW, have adopted the CatSG revisions for their classification of the Felidae.
As for somaliensis, it is misreading Wozencraft to say it was assigned to leo. The way they publish it in the book leaves it ambiguous. Anything not assigned the the other subspecies is left assigned to the species. This would include synonyms of P. leo leo but also includes archaic names and incertae sedis. The database version assigns them to leo and leaves none as synonyms of the species as the whole but I think this was by default rather than an informed decision. I've never understood why Wozencraft mixes synonyms of the species and nominate subspecies. Neither Hemmer (1974) nor Haas (2005) assign somaliensis to leo (nor do earlier authors such as Allen). Recent studies (not seen by Wozencraft) have grouped the Somali lions with north Kenyan lions in the northeastern lion group, which is part of the southern subspecies. The lion where there is most uncertainty is the Ethiopian lion (presumably the questionmark in the CatSG map), partly because they are zoo animals of uncertain origin, and partly because the biogeographical barriers (Nile, rift valley) run through Ethiopia.   Jts1882 | talk  07:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Jts1882. Indeed, the questionmark in the Taskforce's map is hovering over the Horn of Africa. Acc. to Hemmer (1974) Zukowsky's (1964) webbiensis, also captive lions in a German zoo, originated in this region, viz in eastern Ethiopia's Ogaden plateau. Unclear is whether this German zoo obtained them from an Ethiopian zoo, or whether they were wild-caught. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree or not agree — your question of the day

But do you agree that this edit of yours, which implies that what Wozencraft said in 2005, about the Somali lion of East Africa being a population of Panthera leo leo, or more closely related to it than other East African lions, is more important than what the IUCN Red List[23] or Cat Specialist Group[24] said from 2016 – 2017 about lions not being Panthera leo leo but Panthera leo melanochaita, or genetic assessments like that of Bertola et al. (2016)[11] which partially group Somali lions with other Eastern African lions (P. l. melanochaita according to the CSG), was WP:biased and wrong? Even if that is not what Wozencraft actually said, your edit made it look that way.
Not to mention that Panthera leo hollisteri was actually meant for the eastern bank of Lake Victoria, in Lime Springs, Sotik in what is now Kenya, not the northern bank in what is now Uganda. Leo1pard (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, as for your statements "You neglect consensus by the Cat SG Taskforce by removing the respective references from this table and limiting info to Wozencraft (2005) ..." and "Previous version neglects progress made in taxonomy since msw3," again, like you did here, you are accusing me of something that you did yourself. I tried to keep what Wozencraft and the CSG said, more or less, though it needed some adjustments, but you implied that the Somali lion of East Africa belonged to P. l. leo, not P. l. melanochaita, even though the CSG subsumed lions in East Africa to P. l. melanochaita, not P. l. leo. Leo1pard (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with your attempts to figure out what I agree and not agree with, and which extent of importance, more or less, I give to the one or the other researcher's statements.
I agree with the CatSG Taskforce's decision to reduce the number of recognised / valid lion subspecies named in the 19th and 20th centuries that were based on single skins and skull, or 2 at most. I agree that this 2017 assessment is not biased, because it is based on a review of scientific literature published in more than a decade, and was performed by a group of more than 20 people and commissioned by the IUCN Species Survival Commission.
I agree with Altaileopard's remark that one table in the taxonomy section of the Lion article is enough. I agree because one provides a better overview to readers and is easier to update in future than two tables. And I agree with all who think it redundant to duplicate tables, links and refs in this talk page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

But you do not even partially agree with the CSG about Somali lions in East Africa belonging to P. l. melanochaita, so you are being WP:biased and WP:disruptive. I tried to make it clear that since Somali lions are East African lions, not North African lions, they can somewhat be considered to be P. l. melanochaita, using the Cat Specialist Group's classification, apart from the issue of genetic admixture, but you made it look as if this population of the East African lion is not even partially P. l. melanochaita, so you have disagreed with the CSG, in favor of Wozencraft's 2005 classification. To put it simply, according to you, using a classification from 2005, the Somali lion of East Africa is P. l. leo, even though the CSG would currently place East African lions under P. l. melanochaita, and genetic assessments would partially place Somali lions under the Eastern clade, and under a mixed clade. Leo1pard (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Wozencraft (2005) is the one who subsumed somaliensis to leo, the Red List assessors followed him. The Taskforce put a question mark over Horn of Africa, hence subspecific affiliation of lion pop in this area is not yet finally resolved. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It's misleading the say the Red List assessors followed Wozencraft. They include all African lions under leo leo so obviously somaliensis gets included.
The CatSG put a questionmark over Ethiopia, which corresponds to the contact zone in Bertoli et al (2016, Fig 2). This contact area excluded the two lion populations in Somalia. Ethiopia has haplotypes H12, H13 and H14. The haplotypes H13 and H14 fall in the north-east lion clade in the phylogeny (Fig 3). H12 falls with central lions but this is found in central and west of Ethiopia. All the lions indicated in eastern Ethiopia are H13 and H14.) The questionmark on the CatSG indicates Bertoli's admixture zone in Ethiopia, which doesn't include Somalia.
What is the basis for including the Somali lions in P. leo leo, apart from a particular interpretation of Wozencraft on the MSW3 website? In the MSW3 comments it says "Synonyms allocated according to Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951); G. M. Allen (1939). Revised by Pocock (1930c)." Ellerman/Scott didn't assign somaliensis to leo, whereas Allen includes both nubicus and somaliensis in leo (the latter being a specimen from Berlin zoo with "status uncertain"). Its odd to see no mention of Hemmer (1974) who didn't place somaliensis in leo, but instead included them in part under both azandica and nubica, a division which seems to defy geographical topology (Nubia is between NE Congo and Somalia). This uncertainty could explain why Wozencraft (2005) assigned somaliensis as a species synonym, which in the MSW3 website conflates with being a synonym of subspecies leo.   Jts1882 | talk  11:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The easy answers to your comment first : Assigning nubicus to leo makes a lot of sense to me, as this is based on only one specimen sent to France by a military officer who was based in Cairo at the time. Therefore, I consider it far more likely that this specimen originated in Egypt, within the French army's area of influence, than any place farther south. As to assigning somaliensis : lets keep in mind that all 20th century authors had different criteria for subspecific assignment than 21st century taxonomists. All you named above considered external characteristics like skin and mane colour, mane size, and Hemmer (1974) also dental characteristics. I.e. they all looked at individual specimens in zoological collections, but not at sets as large as those used in genetic analyses. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
And what about genetic assessments, like that of Bertola et al. (2016),[11] which do not support [your view] of the Somali lion of East Africa being purely P. l. leo, but either of the Eastern clade (P. l. melanochaita, according to the CSG in 2017), or a mixed clade between Eastern and Central African lions (the latter being P. l. leo, according to the CSG[5] in 2017), and therefore, partly I was trying to say, by grouping P. l. webbiensis with the East African lion, using another reference? Leo1pard (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Were there any lions in Egypt in the mid 19th century? If you dismiss assessments made on single specimens, such as the somaliensis one, why insist that it is assigned to subspecies leo rather than a general assignment to the species (which I think was what Wozencraft did). To go further and say the north African lion is found is Somalia, as in the table, is highly contentious.   Jts1882 | talk  13:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I presume that lions lived in Egypt, as a lion mummy was found in a tomb. The individual described by Blainville as nubicus died in Paris in 1841. I do not dismiss assessments made on single specimens. But only stated that criteria for subspecific status changed, not only for lion pops btw, so that today somaliensis is not regarded as valid subspecies any longer. It is either leo acc. to Wozencraft (2005) and RL assessors, or unresolved acc. to the Taskforce, and referenced accordingly in the table. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

My question was if lions lived in Egypt in the mid-19th century, not whether they ever lived there. We know they had a range through to India at some point.  Jts1882 | talk  16:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Find it out. There were several French, British and German explorers, not many though, travelling in Egypt upriver Nile at the time. Some of their travel accounts are available.-- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting Wozencraft. The synonym somaliensis was assigned to the species, not the subspecies, in the book version. For some reason MSW3 didn't assign synonyms separately to the nominate subspecies, which is normal in species assessments. Hemmer (1974) and Haas (2005) don't assign somaliensis to subspecies leo but assign it in part to azendicus and nubicus. Somali is a long way from the type locality of the subspecies leo as used by all these authors and can't be considered part of the range of the North African (Barbary) lion. The new sensu lato description of subspecies leo is based on genetics and the maps place Somalian lions in melanchaitus.   Jts1882 | talk  16:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Wozencraft considered somaliensis as syn of Panthera leo leo, see this entry. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

But, according to you, the CSG (2017) is more important than Wozencraft (2005), so why are you contradicting yourself by implying that what Wozencraft said in 2005 about the Somali lion of Eastern or Northeastern Africa is more important than what the CSG said in 2017? In addition, the reason why subspecies of lions have been reconsidered is genetics, so the genetic makeup of lions, including those in Eastern or Northeastern Africa, is more important than what Wozencraft said in 2005, though it is strange that the CSG[5] went ahead in 2017 with its recognition of P. l. leo for Central Africa and P. l. melanochaita for Eastern Africa, despite knowing at least the possibility of overlap in Ethiopia or Northeastern Africa, and considering that lions in parts of Central Africa are adjacent to Eastern and Southern Africa are related to lions in those areas, which are supposed to be 'Melanochaitan' lions, according to the CSG.[5] Leo1pard (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Earlier, you argued that Wozencraft (2005)[13] was more important than the work of Haas et al. (2005),[25] though the CSG (2017)[5] and genetic assessments like that of Bertola et al. (2016)[11] should agree more with Haas et al.'s grouping of the Somali lion with the Masai lion (also known as the "East African lion") than with Wozencraft's grouping of somaliensis with the North African lion (P. l. leo),[13] meaning that there is conflict between Wozencraft (2005) and the CSG (2017), and so, I tried to keep what both Wozencraft and the CSG said, separately. Leo1pard (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently it did still not occur to you that Wozencraft was the last taxonomist who referred to this name somaliensis. Haas et al. are not taxonomists. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You have been arguing all along that the CSG is more important than Wozencraft, and the former[5] subsumed lions in East Africa, which includes Somalia, to P. l. melanochaita, and you referred to the trinoma that were used by Wozencraft (2005) as a "shopping mall", so why are you contradicting your own arguments? Leo1pard (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a little reminder : you were the first who used the word ' trinoma ' in the context of taxonomy repeatedly. Check this link Trinoma and then explain what this got to do with taxonomy. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

An answer is there, but the introduction is lacking a reference, so let me refer to the first sentence that does use a reference: "The exact definition of taxonomy varies from source to source, but the core of the discipline remains: the conception, naming, and classification of groups of organisms."[26] A trinomen is used for that purpose, and let me say something that is related to this, a reason why I would talk about the tiger here is that you seem to understand tigers better than lions. For instance, you understood the difference between the Bengal tiger and the 'new' Panthera tigris tigris, which was recognised by the CSG[5] as referring to the Mainland Asian tiger, but did not earlier understand the difference between the black-maned Cape lion and the 'new' Panthera leo melanochaita, which was recognised by the CSG[5] as referring to lions in Eastern and Southern Africa. Leo1pard (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
What exactly is a taxonomist? People studying a variety of aspects of biology (palaeontologists, anatomists, physiologists, geneticists, etc) can contribute to assessing the taxonomy. Hass et al (2005) was the last specific assessment of the lion as part of the ASM's Mammalian Species series, written by specialists in lions. Wozencraft was a general review of past assessments of all Carnivora and according to the notes uses nothing more recent than 1951 for assigning synonyms. He relies on a 1939 assessment for somaliensis which states that somaliensis is "status uncertain". Is a 78 year old assessment where the author expressed doubts to be the overriding piece of information to determine what goes in Wikipedia?   Jts1882 | talk  09:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Not overriding, but since BhagyaMani argued "Mammal Species of the World is the standard taxonomic reference for the world's mammal species," or something similar, I would favor putting in what both Wozencraft and the CSG said, but separately, and using necessary adjustments, especially for any population that was missed out by the former.[13] Leo1pard (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Wozencraft also refers to publications by Hemmer (1978) and Groves (1982). This argument of MSW3 being the taxonomic ref for mammals is not my personal argument. It is being used in most wiki articles on mammals, UNLESS there is a newer publication relating to a mammal family / genus available. Which is the case with the Taskforce's publication, whose lead-author is Andrew Kitchener btw, a renowned taxonomist who authored articles on cat taxonomy since at least the mid 90s. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Like you said, "UNLESS there is a newer publication relating to ..." and so, Wozencraft's[13] linking of Panthera leo somaliensis (but not Panthera leo webbiensis) in Eastern Africa with Panthera leo leo of Northern Africa, in 2005, cannot be more important than the CSG's[5] implication in 2017 that Masai or Eastern African lions, such as the population in eastern Somalia, belong to Panthera leo melanochaita, apart from the mixed Eastern-Central African group to the west,[11] can it? Leo1pard (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Both refs are important to document the changes and progress made, the one not more, not less than the other. Completely unimportant is your link to the shopping mall Trinoma that do did still not explain. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Then why have you been opposing my attempts to make it clear what the different populations or subspecies of lions are, according to the relevant sources, in a way that suggests that you do not understand lions the same way as you understand tigers, judging from your statement that you did not understand why I am using trinoma here, even though I just gave you answers like this or this? Leo1pard (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure he knows what you meant. The exact term you want is Trinomen. The trimonial name and binomial name have equivalent terms (i.e. trinomen and binomen), but the latter doesn't have a shopping mall named BiNoma ( as opposed the the TriNoma mall). A pedant would say that TriNoma and trinona are not equivalent. What you meant is clear enough.   Jts1882 | talk  20:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Groups of African lions

@BhagyaMani: The change from Masai lion into an article, with East African lion as its redirect, into the opposite makes sense, but you have to treat Panthera leo webbiensis as being a trinomen of the East African lion, not the North African lion, because, like I said above:

1) Geographically, the Somali lion is an East African lion, not a North African lion

2) Wozencraft (2005)[13] did not treat P. l. webbiensis as being synonymous with P. l. leo

3) Genetically, putting the works of Bertola et al. (2016)[11] and the Cat Specialist Group (2017)[5] together, the Somali lion is not even one bit North African, but East African with Central African influence.

In addition, it is the eastern bank of Lake Victoria in what is now Kenya where the Sotik lion (P. l. hollisteri)[22] would have been based, not Uganda on the northern bank, so it is more appropriate to group P. l. hollisteri with the East African lion, rather than the Uganda lion. Leo1pard (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Hemmer (1974) and Hass (2005) group hollisteri with nubica (their East African lion), not azandica.
Another question related to the taxonomic history of the east Afrian lion, is it correct to say that Ellerman & Morrison-Scott only recognised two subspecies of lion? As their work is a Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals, it seems they only describe lions in those regions. They don't synonymise any of the subsaharan or northeastern lions. Panthera leo leo only gets synonyms for the Barbary lion (excluding somaliensis), which suggests they only recognise two subspecies in their region of study. Similarly, Allen omits the Indian lion from his checklist of African mammals.   Jts1882 | talk  17:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
In the context of what the IUCN Red List said in 2016,[16] yes, but not for 2017, and I do support the merging of Ethiopian lion, Somali lion and Uganda lion into East African lion, since I believe that African lions can be grouped into different phylogeographic groups: Northern, Western, Central, Northeastern or Eastern, and Southern African lions, barring some pages that are too WP:notable or complicated to be merged into any of these, such as Cape lion, and acknowledging that there are subdivisions within each groups, such as that Tsavo and Transvaal lions are more closely related to each other than Ugandan and Angolan lions, respectively.[2] Leo1pard (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Now I created Panthera leo leo x Panthera leo melanochaita for the genetically mixed lions in northern parts of East Africa, including northern Kenya. Leo1pard (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schaller, George B.; Keane, Richard (1976): The Serengeti lion. A study of predator-prey relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Wildlife behavior and ecology). Page 94.
  2. ^ a b Dubach, Jean; et al. (January 2005). "Molecular genetic variation across the southern and eastern geographic ranges of the African lion, Panthera leo". Conservation Genetics. 6 (1): 15–24. doi:10.1007/s10592-004-7729-6.
  3. ^ Barnett, Ross; Yamaguchi, Nobuyuki; Barnes, Ian; Cooper, Alan (2006). "The origin, current diversity and future conservation of the modern lion (Panthera leo)" (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 273 (1598): 2119–25. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3555. PMC 1635511. PMID 16901830. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 August 2007. Retrieved 4 September 2007. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Christiansen, Per (2008). "On the distinctiveness of the Cape lion (Panthera leo melanochaita Smith, 1842), and a possible new specimen from the Zoological Museum, Copenhagen". Mammalian Biology. 73 (1): 58–65. doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2007.06.003.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae" (PDF). Cat News. Special Issue 11: 76. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  6. ^ "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Two Lion Subspecies" (PDF). Federal Register. Federal government of the United States. 23 December 2015. 80 FR 79999. Retrieved 26 December 2015.
  7. ^ "A New, Genetically Distinct Lion Population is Found". News Watch. National Geographic Society. 30 November 2012. Retrieved 23 January 2013. The Addis Ababa zoo lions have dark manes and small bodies, unlike other African lions. But life in captivity can sometimes influence appearance. A team of researchers, led by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany and the University of York in the UK, checked to see if the lions really are different by comparing DNA samples of 15 lions from the zoo to six populations of wild lions. Their genetic analysis revealed that the gene sequence of all fifteen lions were unique and showed little sign of inbreeding.
  8. ^ a b c Bruche, Susann; Gusset, Markus; Lippold, Sebastian; Barnett, Ross; Eulenberger, Klaus; Junhold, Jörg; Driscoll, Carlos A.; Hofreiter, Michael (2012). "A genetically distinct lion (Panthera leo) population from Ethiopia". European Journal of Wildlife Research. 59 (2): 215–225. doi:10.1007/s10344-012-0668-5.
  9. ^ "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae" (PDF). Cat News. Special Issue 11: 76. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  10. ^ "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae" (PDF). Cat News. Special Issue 11: 76. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k "Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)". Scientific reports 6: 30807. 2016. doi:10.1038/srep30807. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help) Cite error: The named reference "Bertola et al., 2016" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  12. ^ Burger, J.; Rosendahl, Wilfried; Loreille, O.; Hemmer, H.; Eriksson, T.; Götherström, A.; Hiller, Jennifer; Collins, Matthew J.; Wess, Timothy; Alt, Kurt W. (2004). "Molecular phylogeny of the extinct cave lion Panthera leo spelaea" (PDF). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 30 (3): 841–49. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2003.07.020. PMID 15012963. Retrieved 20 September 2007.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Wozencraft, W. C. (2005). "Panthera leo". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 546. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
  14. ^ Heptner, V. G.; Sludskii, A. A. (1992) [1972]. "Lion". Mlekopitajuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Moskva: Vysšaia Škola [Mammals of the Soviet Union, Volume II, Part 2]. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation. pp. 83–95. ISBN 90-04-08876-8.
  15. ^ Bechaus-Gerst, Marianne; Blench, Roger (2014). "11". In Kevin MacDonald (ed.). The Origins and Development of African Livestock: Archaeology, Genetics, Linguistics and Ethnography - "Linguistic evidence for the prehistory of livestock in Sudan" (2000). Routledge. p. 453. Retrieved 2014-09-15.
  16. ^ a b c {{IUCN |assessor=Henschel, P. |assessor2=Bauer, H. |assessor3=Sogbohoussou, E. |assessor4=Nowell, K. |last-assessor-amp=yes |year=2016 |id=68933833 |taxon=Panthera leo (West Africa subpopulation |version=2016.2}}
  17. ^ Nowell, K.; Jackson, P. (1996). "Panthera leo". Wild Cats: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan (PDF). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group. pp. 17–21, 37–41. ISBN 2-8317-0045-0.
  18. ^ Black, S. A.; Fellous, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Roberts, D. L. (2013). "Examining the Extinction of the Barbary Lion and Its Implications for Felid Conservation". PLOS ONE. 8 (4): e60174. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...860174B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060174. PMC 3616087. PMID 23573239.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  19. ^ Burger, J.; Hemmer, H. (2006). "Urgent call for further breeding of the relic zoo population of the critically endangered Barbary lion (Panthera leo leo Linnaeus 1758)" (PDF). European Journal of Wildlife Research. 52: 54–58. doi:10.1007/s10344-005-0009-z.
  20. ^ Black, S.; Yamaguchi, N.; Harland, A.; Groombridge, J. (2010). "Maintaining the genetic health of putative Barbary lions in captivity: an analysis of Moroccan Royal Lions". European Journal of Wildlife Research. 56: 21–31. doi:10.1007/s10344-009-0280-5.
  21. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bertola2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ a b Allen, J. A. (1924). "Carnivora Collected By The American Museum Congo Expedition". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 47: 73–281.
  23. ^ {{IUCN|assessor=Bauer, H.|assessor2=Packer, C.|assessor3=Funston, P.F.|assessor4=Henschel, P.|assessor5=Nowell, K. |year=2016|id=15951|taxon=Panthera leo |version=2017-1}}
  24. ^ "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News. Special Issue 11. 2017. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  25. ^ Haas, S.K.; Hayssen, V.; Krausman, P.R. (2005). "Panthera leo" (PDF). Mammalian Species. 762: 1–11. doi:10.1644/1545-1410(2005)762[0001:PL]2.0.CO;2.
  26. ^ Wilkins, J. S. (5 February 2011). "What is systematics and what is taxonomy?". Retrieved 21 August 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Cave lions

Redirect Panthera leo fossilis and Panthera leo spelaea to Eurasian cave lion?

See this for more details. Leo1pard (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Did cave lions have a different colour to the modern lion?

See this. Leo1pard (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

See also

Reasons for undoing revision by James343e

I thought I need to explain my undoing of James343e's changes in more detail than what is possible in the short description. James343e had added "Sub-Saharan" to Africa in two places because there are no North African lions left. 1) In one place it said, that the term "African lion" includes all African lions populations. This would also include North African ones, if there were any. Thus the addition is not only irrelevant, but incorrect. 2) In the other place it said that populations declined by 43% in range countries since 1996. As there were already no lions left in North Africa at the time, the addition is unnecessary. Additionally, the maps and the rest of the text are clear enough that there are no lions left in North Africa, and furthermore, adding Sub-Saharan in such places may only confuse the average reader, i.e. by inducing the question in him "what about the non-Sub-Saharan ones?". This would need to be explained in both places, but is unnecessary, as it is explained elsewhere in the article. Any objections to my reasoning? Robuer (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bergmann's rule for lions

See this. Leo1pard (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Almost empty section

Should the section on heraldic depictions not be merged into that of cultural significance, by deleting the former section, and moving the link for Lion (heraldry) into the latter section? Leo1pard (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Leo1pard (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Did Dublin Zoo have a Persian lioness (literally)?

See this. Leo1pard (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Change the sentence: "The lion typically inhabits grasslands and savannahs, but is absent in dense forest."

Hello, I am not a skilled english writer, yet I suggest to rewrite this sentence as follows: "The lion typically inhabits grasslands and savannahs, but is absent in dense forests."

Due to the rule, we must put an article in front of a singular count noun "forest", but we do not have an article right now. So, as mentioned earlier "grasslands and savannahs", which we have in plural form, the "forest" should be in the plural form also. BigSugarDaddy 10:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

In that usage forest refers to forests in general rather than a single forest, so the absence of the article is correct (adding it would change the meaning). However, given grasslands and savannahs are plurals, a plural is probably better in that sentence.   Jts1882 | talk  11:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you,   Jts1882 | talk . I have changed the sentence. BigSugarDaddy 12:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

cites in lead

@LittleJerry:: I disagree with your insistence that "cites do not belong in the lead paragraphs". Citations and references are not prohibited in the lead, and MOS:CITELEAD clearly allows referencing sources. This is common practice in all other wikipedia articles about mammals, reptiles and birds that are on my watchlist. There is NO harm to reference authors of the information and statements provided. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The information in the lead is uncontroversial and general and does not require cites. Also, in FAC reviews, the reviewers prefer that the lead paragraphs be uncited. I know, as I have nominated several. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree that in abstracts of FAC reviews, references are not necessary and even unwanted. But there is a major difference between a lead of a wikipedia article and an abstract in a scientific publication!! Again: no harm in citing references in the lead, the more so as some of those cited are not referred to anywhere else in the other sections of the article. And in most other articles on wildlife, there are also references in the lead!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
We are talking about FA articles. How many FA animal articles have cites in the lead? Take a look at animal articles that have been added to the FA list in recent years, they likely have uncited leads. LittleJerry (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@LittleJerry and Tribe of Tiger: By chance, I found a featured article that shows 9 refs plus one note in the lead's 3 paragraphs : Suffolk Wildlife Trust. The Lion article is so long and detailed that it is not justified that you keep removing information from it's lead. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay then. I have no problem with expanding the lead, but you're really pushing it using that article as justification for cites. How about checking out recent FA animal articles and see if they have cites in the lead? LittleJerry (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Predation on adult elephants

See this[1] and this. Manwë986 According to Compion and Power,[1] the weight of subadult elephants is less than half that of adult females, and that elephant which was taken by no means looked that small, more like ​2⁄3 or 3⁄4 that of an adult which was termed "too big" for the lions, and the narrator said that it was only slightly smaller than the big one. Leo1pard (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Power, R. J.; Compion, R. X. Shem (2009). "Lion predation on elephants in the Savuti, Chobe National Park, Botswana". African Zoology 44 (1): 36–44. doi:10.3377/004.044.0104.

FAR probably needed

This has been a featured article since 2007, and last went through WP:FAR in 2011. Since then, the article has changed dramatically and I've observed that FA quality has not been maintained. For example:

  • The section that was once Taxonomy and Evolution has been rearranged into a confusing set of headings including the puzzling "Fossil lions" and Evolution was moved to its own section, inconsistent with other mammal FAs. The narrative is extremely difficult to follow now.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The former "Cultural depictions" section was changed to "Cultural significance" and has blown up to at least twice its previous size. Lots of trivia of unknown significance has been added including the "In entertainment" subheading which is always a magnet for drive-by additions of questionable notability.
The "In entertainment" subsection was there for years but was previous known as "Baiting and taming" and in the conservation section. I changed the title back. LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Choppy and sub-par prose have been introduced throughout.
Copyedit done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sources used to write the reviewed version have been removed and replaced with others, so a complete source review and spot-check for plagiarism should be carried out.
  • MoS violations have been introduced like bolding in the article text and inconsistent or incorrect citation styles.

If those active on this page are willing to address the above items, we can possibly avoid listing this at FAR. --Laser brain (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed the bold format from some words, so now only the word 'lion' is in the bold format. Leo1pard (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. Haven't looked at this in a while as haven't had the energy. But yeah...needs some....housekeeping. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe even a revert to the reviewed version would be in order? And then adding whatever that has been placed there since which was of value. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The new phylogenetic material is important. Hence the FA version is outdated. I have been meaning to compare the FA to current version and see what they look like. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I did a cleanup of "group organization", "Diet and hunting" and "Reproduction and life cycle" a while back and added in information on cultural views of the lion in Africa. I can confirm that the sources I have (Schaller, Denis-Hoot) are properly cited in these sections but I don't have all of them. I also requested a copyedit. LittleJerry (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The citations need cleanup, especially those with multiple names stuffed into a single parameter, or editors in author parameters. I did a bit of cleanup but do not have time right now. Ping me if you don't get around to it. P.S. Here's a diff of the 2011 FA version to today. There is too much improvement to revert, IMO. You need to go forward with what is here, perhaps with some restructuring. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pinging LittleJerry, Casliber, FunkMonk, and Jonesey95: Can you weigh in on the current state of this article? I brought up a potential FAR in June. BhagyaMani and Leo1pard continue to play out disputes about lion subspecies here and across other related articles, which I think causes serious stability problems for this to be a Featured article. What needs to be done here? --Laser brain (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
One thing that should happen is that we are able to justify what we do in relevant talk-pages like this one. For example, when I did this, I said why I did that below. Leo1pard (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure both of you feel that you can justify what you do, but you've created a slow-moving edit war lasting months that affects the stability of the article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying that both of us cannot do that, but a difference between me and him is that I am careful to justify in relevant talk-pages what I do in articles like this, but he has a habit of ignoring what I say, even if I ping him in talk-pages like this to talk to him. For example, when I tried to talk to him about the fact that not all Central African lions are of the northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo), he just ignored me and carried on with whatever he wanted to do. From this, it appears that he thinks that because I joined Wikipedia long after he did, I can't tell him what he doesn't know. Leo1pard (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I have the same comment as before. I looked at the citations, and they need tidying to FA standards. It is tedious work, but not hard. Here's an example: |author=Hanby, J. P., Bygott, J. D. . Those two author names should each appear in their own parameter, |author1= and |author2=, or |last1=, |first1=, |last2=, and |first2=. I count 16 references with this problem. There is also a mix of CS1 (e.g. cite book, cite web) and CS2 (e.g. citation) templates, which means that citations are formatted inconsistently. I see at least one author name in the format "Frump, RR" instead of "Frump, R. R." I see inconsistent formatting of page ranges, like "841–849" and "716–28". I see author initials written like "Loarie, S.R." instead of "Loarie, S. R." None of this is surprising in a long article that has been edited by many people over a period of years, but these things need to be made consistent. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
These two are edit warring over minutiae on every article where lions are even just mentioned, which I think is part of the problem. They even edit warred over which damn lion subspecies should be linked from an image caption in the completely unrelated Smilodon article. I think they need to cool down, they are disturbing more than they are improving with their shenanigans. The energy wasted is better spent on fixing those citation issues above, f they really care about these articles. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I need to get my head around what the dispute is actually about. Clarifying who is right would be a good place to start. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that LittleJerry did an excellent FAR job earlier this year, which included shortening the section on subspecies considerably. In particular, the excessive details on now obsolete subspecific names, earlier presented in a table, was reduced to just a short list. Now this old stuff is back in again, AND it is replicated on this talk page. In both cases with too much and therefore dispensable detail, imo. Possibly, most citations are ok when this section is again reduced to the previous version without table. Try it out. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I just saw that Casliber suggested to delete the table in June. And probably was the one who turned it into a list? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Let me explain what the issue is in the first place. BhagyaMani's policy is to have pages like Lion, Asiatic lion and Central African lion, have only information that he wants, or to remove information that he doesn't want, even if I try to talk to him about what is wrong with those edits, whereas I have a policy of allowing different views from different sources to exist, so as to allow articles to be WP:balanced between the different sources, and I would try to justify what I do in talk-pages like this, as you might see from the fact that I have talked here quite a lot. Here is an example, the Central African lion:
BhagyaMani would say "The Central African lion is a Panthera leo leo population in northern parts of Central and East Africa.[1][2]"
I would say "The Central African lion[3] is a population of lions in Central Africa that has been grouped under the northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo), but was also found to be related to the southern subspecies[4][5] (Panthera leo melanochaita),[2][1] depending on the subpopulation, and is fragmented into small and isolated groups since the 1950s.[6][7]" I also provided a justification for it in a relevant talk-page like this.
Despite making several attempts to talk to BhagyaMani about what has gone wrong (for example, [4], [5], [6] and [7]), BhagyaMani has a habit of ignoring what I try to talk to him about, notice that after I tried to talk to him about certain edits that he made, he did not respond to my recent attempts to talk to him here, as of now, but continued to edit the article, and even apart from that, he has made several edits that reflect a WP:biased understanding of lions, or what should be in these articles, for example, saying that the name of the Central African lion did not exist in any of the sources that I provided, when in fact I already gave him one source that did,[3] and earlier insisting that the Cape lion is not extinct, but that it is a subspecies which is alive today! Leo1pard (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the Cat Specialist Group continues to recognise the Asiatic and African populations,[8][9] despite their revision of subspecies in 2017.[2] Take the article about the Asiatic lion for instance, they mentioned that it was now recognized as belonging to the subspecies Panthera leo leo. Leo1pard (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

And yout point is? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
That the very group that revised subspecies[2] continues to recognize the African and Asiatic populations as they are, even subpopulations of African lions that were grouped in the different subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
You refer to websites that have probably not been updated in a long time. Relevant are publications, NOT content of websites!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
They[8][9] reflect the recent revision of the subspecies, stating that Asiatic lions are of the same subspecies (P. l. leo) as certain African lions, with others being P. l. melanochaita, and that the ranges of these subspecies overlap in Ethiopia, and it's from the same group that published the revision, so it's a broader explanation on lions by the CSG in 2 pages that are meant to be about lions, rather than felids in general, so what matters here is that it's from the CSG, not the format of their work.[2] Leo1pard (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The web site has been updated, as it includes the recognition of the two subspecies. In fact it was updated in 2015 to include the provisional split into two subspecies and then in 2017 to reflect official recommendation. You can't dismiss the official website of the group making the determination. The publication will be the more important taxonomic reference, but the website has additional information on the lions. The IUCN publish a lot (most?) of their work on their websites. With respect to the Cat SG, their website is organised on geographical grounds and uses common names for species as article titles. The only exceptions are the articles on Asiatic lions, cheetahs and wildcats, none of which fit the taxonomy conveniently. The African lion article is about Panthera leo in Africa and has recognised that the old division into African and Asiatic lions is obsolete since 2014 (which I think was the website first appeared). The title certainly doesn't reflect any recognition of the African lion as a subspecies or distinct population, now or then.   Jts1882 | talk  14:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b {{IUCN |assessor=Bauer, H. |assessor2=Packer, C. |assessor3=Funston, P. F. |assessor4=Henschel, P. |assessor5=Nowell, K. |year=2016 |id=15951 |taxon=''Panthera leo'' |version=2017-3 |doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T15951A107265605.en}}
  2. ^ a b c d e Kitchener, A. C.; Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.; Eizirik, E.; Gentry, A.; Werdelin, L.; Wilting, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Abramov, A. V.; Christiansen, P.; Driscoll, C.; Duckworth, J. W.; Johnson, W.; Luo, S.-J.; Meijaard, E.; O’Donoghue, P.; Sanderson, J.; Seymour, K.; Bruford, M.; Groves, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Nowell, K.; Timmons, Z.; Tobe, S. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News. Special Issue 11: 71–73. ISSN 1027-2992.
  3. ^ a b Pocock, R. I. (1939). "Panthera leo". The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia. – Volume 1. London: Taylor and Francis Ltd. pp. 212–222.
  4. ^ Barnett, R.; Sinding, M. H.; Vieira, F. G.; Mendoza, M. L.; Bonnet, M.; Araldi, A.; Kienast, I.; Zambarda, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Henschel, P.; Gilbert, M. T. (2018). "No longer locally extinct? Tracing the origins of a lion (Panthera leo) living in Gabon". Conservation Genetics. 19 (3): 1–8. doi:10.1007/s10592-017-1039-2.
  5. ^ Bertola, L.D.; Jongbloed, H.; Van Der Gaag, K.J.; De Knijff, P.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Bauer, H.; Henschel, P.; White, P.A.; Driscoll, C.A.; Tende, T. (2016). "Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)". Scientific Reports. 6: 30807. doi:10.1038/srep30807. PMC 4973251. PMID 27488946. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Chardonnet, P. (2002). Conservation of African lion (PDF). Paris: International Foundation for the Conservation of Wildlife. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 November 2013. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Bauer, H.; Van Der Merwe, S. (2004). "Inventory of free-ranging lions Panthera leo in Africa". Oryx. 38 (1): 26–31. doi:10.1017/S0030605304000055.
  8. ^ a b Asiatic lion, Species Survival Commission, Cat Specialist Group, retrieved 2017-08-01
  9. ^ a b African lion, Species Survival Commission, Cat Specialist Group, retrieved 2017-08-01

Taxonomy and phylogeny section

From "Taxonomy and phylogeny", subsection "Subspecies", in the table, "Asiatic lion": "It is protected in the Gir Forest National Park, and four protected areas in the region." Does this mean that there are four separate protected areas within the Gir Forest? Or is the whole Gir Forest protected, with four other protected areas near the forest? Two references are given, but I am unable to view them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that "there are four separate protected areas within the Gir Forest". These patches are outside the protected area. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The whole subspecies table should be deleted anyway (as it is obsolete) and all the obsolete names put in the appropriate section (and other material into distribution and habitat. Does anyone object to this before I go ahead and remove it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest to leave it for some time, as this revised taxonomy dates only 2017, and still spurs some objections. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Casliber Oppose, the classification by the Cat Specialist Group in 2017[1] does not solve the issue of where lions in Northeast Africa go, they put a question mark over the region in the map on Page 72. They also proclaimed "The contact zone (between the 2 recognised subspecies) is somewhere in Ethiopia ... On the basis of these recent studies, we recognise two subspecies, although morphological diagnoses are currently unknown," which means that their classification of subspecies of lions, as of now, is not perfect or complete, and still needs review. Leo1pard (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, this is an example of the objections spurred. The referenced article by Bertola et al. 2016 clearly and unmistakably placed lion samples from Ethiopia, Somalia and Kenya into the East African lion group. It does NOT mean that lion taxonomy needs another review, but merely that morphological analysis of the samples has not been done yet. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Bertola et al. (2016) did not exclusively place lion samples from Kenya and the Horn countries of Ethiopia and Somalia exclusively in the South-East African lion group,[2] which the CSG would refer to as Panthera leo melanochaita.[1] Leo1pard (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
They did indeed: see supplementary table 1. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Not exclusively the South-East African group, but also including the North-East African group, and this diagram was used in the Page 12 of the document to which the supplementary table links. In addition, some samples from Ethiopia grouped with the North-Central African lion group (which is linked to the North African and Asiatic lions), which you should know. Leo1pard (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
No opinion on the content matter but we need to stop introducing sub-par writing to this article. "It is thought" is not good writing. --Laser brain (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@BhagyaMani and Leo1pard:, regardless of where some populations are put, the table itself is outdated and misleading, and should be replaced by one with two (2) subspecies plus notes on indeterminate populations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Casliber Realistically, you would have to be talking about a table like this, because the indeterminate population of lions in Northeast Africa, which the CSG[1] had difficulty in resolving, are in a region where the two recognized subspecies (P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita) overlap (which would result in P. l. leo × P. l. melanochaita, similar to a liger being Panthera leo × Panthera tigris), or are both determined by genetic tests to be present at least:[2] Leo1pard (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes - and if that reflects current thinking, then that is what it should be. Discrete populations can be discussed in Distribution or Conservation sections. Or in the table. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The middle row in the proposed table is superfluous. melanochaita includes the 9 lion samples from Ethiopia with leo haplotypes. This is what the cited authors wrote, it would anyway be insincere to extrapolate from 9 samples to such a generalized statement that the lion population in Northeast Africa is admixed. Seems to be a big misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the 2 cited sources. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
That melanochaita includes the 9 lion samples from Ethiopia with leo haplotypes is what I had said was 'problematic' for the CSG's recognition of only 2 subspecies of lions in Africa and the Old World.[1] The classification of lions into 2 subspecies (P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita) should mean that lions are divided into 2 groups that are genetically and geographically distinct from one another, but due to the fact that they overlap or are both present in northern parts of East Africa, including Ethiopia, that does not always apply, and certainly, I did not mean that all Northeast African lions are of this genetically mixed group, like I would not say that all Central African lions belong to P. l. leo, when in fact those in the southern part of Congo-Kinshasa or Central Africa belong to the South-East African group[2] (P. l. melanochaita). Leo1pard (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Another misinterpretation of the revised lion taxonomy!! But at least you seem to understand now that not all of Northeast Africa is the contact zone but merely Ethiopia. That btw is the basic understanding of subspecies: that they were connected once upon a time, many generations ago. I see that you just copy-pasted my recent addition to the Central African lion wiki article into your wiki posts. I feel honoured. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Name Description Image
Panthera leo leo[1][3] (Linnaeus, 1758)[4] Lions in Northern, Western and Central Africa, and Asia.
Panthera leo leo × Panthera leo melanochaita[1] (Smith, 1842)[4] Lions in northern parts of East Africa, which exhibit varied or mixed genetic traits between P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita.[1][2]
Panthera leo melanochaita[1][3] (Smith, 1842)[4] Lions in Eastern and Southern Africa.

A table consisting of three images and a little bit of text seems very superfluous. Discuss it in the text and save the space. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that 2 are sufficient. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Even the bulleted list may be sufficient. What do you think? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I would have at least modified the information that you put in Central African lion regarding lions in Sudan (which is not in Central Africa, but regarded as being in Northeast or North Africa, or even East Africa), once I made that clear to you where Sudan and its lions actually belong, even if in varied ways. There are lions of which the genetic and geographic statuses make the classification into 2 subspecies complicated. It is not like the case of separating tigers into 2 subspecies, because these 2 subspecies (P. t. tigris in mainalnd Asia and P. t. sondaica in the Sunda Islands) are geographically separated, unlike the subspecies of African lions, and I am using subspecies of tigers for a comparison here, because they are comparatively well defined and simple to understand, partly due to geographic separation. If P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita did not share a region or overlap, then classifying lions into either subspecies would have been easier, like classifying tigers into 2 subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a source cited in Conservation (Bauer & van der Merwe) but not defined. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h Kitchener, A. C.; Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.; Eizirik, E.; Gentry, A.; Werdelin, L.; Wilting, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Abramov, A. V.; Christiansen, P.; Driscoll, C.; Duckworth, J. W.; Johnson, W.; Luo, S.-J.; Meijaard, E.; O'Donoghue, P.; Sanderson, J.; Seymour, K.; Bruford, M.; Groves, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Nowell, K.; Timmons, Z.; Tobe, S. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News (Special Issue 11).
  2. ^ a b c d Bertola, L. D.; Jongbloed, H.; Van Der Gaag, K. J.; De Knijff, P.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Bauer, H.; Henschel, P.; White, P. A.; Driscoll, C. A.; Tende, T.; Ottosson, U.; Saidu, Y.; Vrieling, K.; de Iongh, H. H. (2016). "Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)". Scientific Reports. 6: 30807. doi:10.1038/srep30807.
  3. ^ a b {{IUCN |assessor=Bauer, H. |assessor2=Packer, C. |assessor3=Funston, P. F. |assessor4=Henschel, P. |assessor5=Nowell, K. |year=2016 |id=15951 |taxon=''Panthera leo'' |version=2017-3}} doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T15951A107265605.en
  4. ^ a b c Wozencraft, W. C. (2005). "Panthera leo". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 546. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
Reversion. I suppose that these few had exactly a single ruff between them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


Head-to-body length

In "Description", what does "Head-to-body length" mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Axl: It means the length of the head and body together and excluding the tail. LittleJerry (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Is that the phrase used in the sources? When I read it, it seems to me to mean the distance between the head and the body; the head is directly joined to the body (without much of a neck) so the "head-to-body length" is zero. I think that "head-and-body length" makes more sense. However we should follow the sources. If the sources confirm "head-to-body", perhaps we could add a note to explain the definition? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

References

From "Population and conservation status", subsection "In Africa", paragraph 5: "There is disagreement over the size of the largest individual population in West Africa; the estimates range from 100 to 400 lions in Burkina Faso's Arly-Singou ecosystem." This is referenced to IUCN. However I don't see this information in the reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I suspect stuff got moved around. Was going to trawl through history but am really tired now. Tomorrow (unless someone does it overnight) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This reference gives 356 (246–466) for the West African lion in the so-called WAP complex, in which is Arli National Park in Burkina Faso.[1] Leo1pard (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The IUCN entry for the Panthera leo (West Africa subpopulation) discusses that article and others. [2]
  • "Taxonomy and phylogeny", subsection "Hybrids": the end of the first paragraph needs a reference. (Is Chamorro supposed to be the reference?) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Henschel, P.; Coad, L.; Burton, C.; Chataigner, B.; Dunn, A.; MacDonald, D.; Saidu, Y.; Hunter, L. T. B. (2014). Hayward, M. (ed.). "The Lion in West Africa is Critically Endangered". PLoS ONE. 9 (1): e83500. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083500. PMC 3885426. PMID 24421889.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  2. ^ "Panthera leo (West Africa subpopulation)". The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2015: e.T68933833A54067639. 2015. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)


Dispute over a Namibian lion being a Southern African lion?

Male Namibian lion in the area of Okonjima

LittleJerry Can you explain what's disputable about the Nambian lion in Okonjima being a Southern African lion? Namibia is in Southern Africa. Leo1pard (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The subspecies have been revised. See the subspecies subsection. LittleJerry (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

LittleJerry I said, then are you going to remove the name of the Bengal tiger from the lead image of Tiger as well? Why is it that you removed the name of the Southern African lion from this lead image, with the arguments on subspecies (which I already know, but the same should apply to that Bengal tiger because subspecies of tigers have been revised as well, if really your argument on subspecies was relevant to the purpose of this discussion on what type of lion this is), and then that "The name of a population is of no relevance to the average reader", when you were happy to keep the name of the Bengal tiger in the lead image of the article 'Tiger'? Like I said, this lion is a Southern African lion, like that tiger is a Bengal tiger. Leo1pard (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The Southern African lion is no longer considered a subspecies. Lion subspecies have been revised numerous times and we don't need that in the main image. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
LittleJerry Then why did you apply the opposite logic to the lead image of 'Tiger'? You are unhappy to call this lion a "Southern African lion", even though you were happy to call that tiger a "Bengal tiger". The revision of subspecies is also applicable to tigers, but you followed a different policy for this species. However, as discussed before, the revision of subspecies in 2017 won't necessarily stop people from referring to different populations of big cats, such as South African lions[1] and Bengal and Siberian tigers, as "South African lions" and "Bengal and Siberian tigers", for example. These names have been there, and they continue to be used, despite the reclassification of subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The Southern lion is not a subspecies. Its that simple. LittleJerry (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
LittleJerry your argument "The Southern lion is not a subspecies. Its that simple." contradicts at least one source, though it should be noted that not all East African lions purely belong to the southern subspecies (Panthera leo melanochaita), particularly considering the genetics of the Ethiopian lion.[2] In addition, if the Southern African lion is not a subspecies, then neither is an Asiatic lion nor a Bengal tiger, because both populations have been included in wider subspecies, Panthera leo leo and Panthera tigris tigris (for tigers in Mainland Asia) respectively,[3] but you are happy to call those as an "Asiatic lion" and "Bengal tiger", respectively. It is not fair that you are using the issue of subspecies being revised to ignore the name of the Southern African lion, but at the same time, uphold the names of the Asiatic lion and Bengal tiger, especially considering that you kept the name of the latter in the lead image of the article 'Tiger'. If you are going to call an Asiatic lion and Bengal tiger as an Asiatic lion and Bengal tiger, despite the revision of subspecies, then do not stop me from using the name "Southern African lion", to be fair. Leo1pard (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The current article on the Southern African lion discusses only lions from the very south. No East African lions which are also part of P. l. melanochaita are included. So no, Southern African lions is NOT a valid subspecies. Mentioning the Asiatic lion in some photos is valid in the context that they are the only population that survives in Asia. I haven't been following tiger taxonomy and I could care less if you remove mention of the Bengal tiger from the lead image. That's irrelevant to this article. LittleJerry (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, the current article on the Southern African lion does not just discuss lions from the very south, it also talks about East African lions in a relevant context, that is taxonomy and genetics:
Section "Taxonomic history": "In 2016, IUCN Red List assessors subsumed all African lion populations to P. l. leo.[4] ... Results of phylogeographic studies support the notion of lions in Southern Africa being genetically close, but distinct from populations in Western and Northern Africa and Asia.[5][6] Based on the analysis of samples from 357 lions from 10 countries, it is thought that lions migrated from Southern Africa to East Africa during the Pleistocene and Holocene eras.[5] Results of a DNA analysis using 26 lion samples from Southern and Eastern Africa indicate that genetic variation between them is low and that two major clades exist: one in southwestern Africa and one in the region from Uganda and Kenya to KwaZulu-Natal.[7]"
Secondly, Panthera leo melanochaita is valid for lions in Southern Africa, including Namibia,[3] but you opposed my use of that name, so your argument on subspecies here is not matched by what you did then. Here, you talk about the validity of subspecies, but there, you give a different argument.
Thirdly, why did you argue here "Mentioning the Asiatic lion in some photos is valid in the context that they are the only population that survives in Asia," when you would remove the name "Asiatic lion" for pictures of lions from Asia, at the same time, as if it is not? Leo1pard (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Fourthly, I was using the example of what you did to the article 'Tiger' to complain that the way you treated this article is different to how you treated another article, and you are me "I haven't been following tiger taxonomy ..." 23 hours after I told you "Well, then never mind what subspecies it is. It is a Southern African lion, like the tiger in the lead image of Tiger is a Bengal tiger, otherwise, are you going to take off the name of the Bengal tiger from the tiger in the lead image of the article 'Tiger' as well?" But you did not care about what I said then. Leo1pard (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Sign. I meant that the Southern African lion only has the very southern living lions as the SUBJECT! It only discusses East African lions by their relation to Southern African lions. This article discusses other big cats, but only in relation to lions. Please stop with the hair-splitting. LittleJerry (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You should not have argued with me about subspecies in the first place if you were going to change it to being about 'hairsplitting'. I follow the same rule here as I did in other articles like 'Tiger'. The lead image of that article has had the name of the Bengal tiger population since 2006, and I was happy to keep that name there, even though subspecies were revised in 2017, partly as people would still call Bengal tigers as "Bengal tigers", like they would still call Siberian tigers as "Siberian tigers", and likewise, I was applying the same logic here, but you give me statements that do not always match what you say, or conflict with each other, for example, after you tell me "The subspecies have been revised. See the subspecies subsection." I proceed to talk about subspecies, but then you change your argument to say that this isn't necessary, then I make this edit with a saying about applying the same logic to the article 'Tiger', then you revert it, without caring what I said then, then you talk about subspecies again, then Jts1882 and I had to show that your argument about the Southern lion not being a subspecies contradicted at least one source, then you talk about the issue of subspecies again, and make an argument about the Asiatic lion that did not match what you did at the same time, and now, you are not using the issue of subspecies, but 'hair-splitting', so your statements and actions contradict each other. Please do not give me any more contradictory statements about subspecies or details, or actions, like removing the names "Asiatic lion", "East African lion" and "Southern African lion" (or even "[Southern lion" (Panthera leo melanochaita)), even if it is relevant to the context of what they are in, considering that you told me "Mentioning the Asiatic lion in some photos is valid in the context ..." and just let me proceed to do something that I would do in other articles like 'Tiger', out of fairness. Leo1pard (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Look. I argued that mentioning the Asian lion is valid since it is the only surviving lion in Asia. That doesn't mean I think it is completely necessary and their is still one photo that refers to Asian lions ("Distribution and habitat"). "Valid" and "necessary" do not mean the same thing, so there was no contradiction in my actions there. As for this, I'll admit I exampled poorly there, but "Southern African lion" is not the common name for P. l. melanochaita. If you want to remove mention of the Bengal tiger in the lead image of the tiger article, I won't stop you. But that's relevant here. LittleJerry (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I agreed that the simple statement that the Southern Lion is not a subspecies is wrong. There are two recognised subspecies, a southern one (with populations in southern and eastern Africa) and a northern one (with populations in western and central Africa and in India). The problem is that there are no clear common names for these subspecies. Some would argue that southern lion applies only to the southern African population of a Southern and Eastern African lion, while others would consider this a mouthful and opt for the more manageabe Southern (African) lion. I note the article on the Southern African lion is about the southern African population. Either way the Southern African lion describes the photo accurately.
The iNaturalist article links to a US Fish and Wildlife Service publication, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Two Lion Subspecies, which gives a nice summary of the situation. It's interesting to note that this predated the Cat Specialist Group publication by almost two years.   Jts1882 | talk  10:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
P. l. melanochaita is not called the "Southern African lion". That's my point. LittleJerry (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Southern lion" is used as the name here.[8] Leo1pard (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

And the article Southern African lion does not have all the lions classified under P. l. melanochaita as its subject. LittleJerry (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Southern lion now does, but only in the context of genetics and distribution. I prefer to leave other information like taxonomic history and characteristics are to the older, more detailed pages on the different populations. Leo1pard (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schofield, A. (2013). White Lion: Back to the Wild. Pennsauken: BookBaby. ISBN 0620570059.
  2. ^ Bertola, L. D.; Jongbloed, H.; Van Der Gaag, K. J.; De Knijff, P.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Bauer, H.; Henschel, P.; White, P. A.; Driscoll, C. A.; Tende, T.; Ottosson, U.; Saidu, Y.; Vrieling, K.; de Iongh, H. H. (2016). "Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)". Scientific Reports. 6: 30807. doi:10.1038/srep30807.
  3. ^ a b Kitchener, A. C.; Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.; Eizirik, E.; Gentry, A.; Werdelin, L.; Wilting, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Abramov, A. V.; Christiansen, P.; Driscoll, C.; Duckworth, J. W.; Johnson, W.; Luo, S.-J.; Meijaard, E.; O’Donoghue, P.; Sanderson, J.; Seymour, K.; Bruford, M.; Groves, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Nowell, K.; Timmons, Z.; Tobe, S. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News (Special Issue 11).
  4. ^ Bauer, H.; Packer, C.; Funston, P. F.; Henschel, P.; Nowell, K. (2016). "Panthera leo". The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2016. IUCN: e.T15951A115130419. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T15951A107265605.en. Retrieved 15 January 2018.
  5. ^ a b Antunes, A.; Troyer, J. L.; Roelke, M. E.; Pecon-Slattery, J.; Packer, C.; Winterbach, C.; Winterbach, H.; Johnson, W. E. (2008). "The Evolutionary Dynamics of the Lion Panthera leo Revealed by Host and Viral Population Genomics". PLoS Genetics. 4 (11): e1000251. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000251. PMC 2572142. PMID 18989457.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  6. ^ Bertola, L. D.; Van Hooft, W. F.; Vrieling, K.; Uit De Weerd, D. R.; York, D. S.; Bauer, H.; Prins, H. H. T.; Funston, P. J.; Udo De Haes, H. A.; Leirs, H.; Van Haeringen, W. A.; Sogbohossou, E.; Tumenta, P. N.; De Iongh, H. H. (2011). "Genetic diversity, evolutionary history and implications for conservation of the lion (Panthera leo) in West and Central Africa". Journal of Biogeography. 38 (7): 1356–1367. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02500.x.
  7. ^ Dubach, J.; Patterson, B.D.; Briggs, M.B.; Venzke, K.; Flamand, J.; Stander, P.; Scheepers, L.; Kays, R.W. (2005). "Molecular genetic variation across the southern and eastern geographic ranges of the African lion, Panthera leo". Conservation Genetics. 6 (1): 15–24. doi:10.1007/s10592-004-7729-6.
  8. ^ Southern Lion (Panthera leo ssp. melanochaita), iNaturalist, retrieved 2018-06-03

Source

The article currently states "In Sudan, lions were reported in Southern Darfur and Southern Kordofan provinces in the 1980s." I can't find were the sources support this. This was added recently. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

See Chardonnet (2002). If that ref is missing, please add it, should have ref name=Chardonnet2002. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Its there on my screen. It doesn't mention Sudan or the provinces. LittleJerry (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay I guess your using the maps in Riggio et. al. for the provinces, but I don't see a map for Chardonnet (2002). LittleJerry (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't you have a search function in your pdf viewer. See page 57!!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. The wayback link only goes down to page 27 (for me at least) and the original link is dead. I'd take your word for it that the info is there. LittleJerry (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course the info is there, a pers. comm. of the author in 1985. Do you think I would invent this? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
No, sources could have gotten mixed up. LittleJerry (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The newly classified subspecies

Before 2017, plenty of subspecies of lions, especially the Barbary lion (Panthera leo leo) and Cape lion (Panthera leo melanochaita),[1][2][3] were recognised, then in 2017, the Cat Classification Taskforce of the Cat Specialist Group revised subspecies of lions, besides for other felid species, and recognised the subspecies Panthera leo leo (for lions in Northern, Western and (northern) Central Africa and Asia) and Panthera leo melanochaita (for lions in Eastern and Southern Africa), but put a question mark over the Horn of Africa in a map on Page 72, saying that the two subspecies come into contact in Ethiopia,[4] and this is apparently due to the fact that lions in Ethiopia and other northern parts of East Africa are genetically mixed between clades belonging to two subspecies.[5] meaning that subspecies of African lions are not fully resolved by the Cat Specialist Group as of now. Aside from that, when people say Panthera leo leo or Panthera leo melanochaita, they would often mean the Barbary and Cape populations, not always the newly classified subspecies, which I named the "Northern lion" and "Southern lion", using this[6] and this[7] from the iNaturalist. I ask, what is the point of having the trinomina Panthera leo leo and Panthera le melanochaita as articles of their own when:

1) People use them to refer to the Barbary and Cape populations of lions, therefore

2) We need to be able to call the new subspecies with names, as in, what do you call a Panthera leo leo lion if not a "Northern lion", and what do you call a Panthera leo melanochaita lion if not a "Southern lion"? "Panthera leo leo lion" and "Panthera leo melanochaita lion" are unusual for proper names, and I had earlier used "Leonine" and "Melanochaitan" to describe lions belonging to the two newly classified subspecies, due to a lack of names for them, other than "Northern lion"[6] and "Southern lion".[7] Leo1pard (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

A common name is a name that is COMMONLY used in scientific and popular publications about an organism. If you or the owner of a website invents a name for an organism, this doesn't make it a common name! 'Northern' lion and 'Southern' lion have NOT been used in ANY scientific publication since the revision of lion taxonomy was published in April 2017. Hence, they are NOT common names. A multitude of species and subspecies were not given common names by respective authorities. For such cases, the Latin, i.e. scientific name is used. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

They may not be common names now, but that's not the only point. As it is, the 2017 revision was recent, you still need to be able to name those subspecies, to avoid confusion. The Barbary and Cape lions are not the newly classified subspecies, so what are you supposed to call them? Leo1pard (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

They 'may not' only be, but ARE NOT common names now. What exactly confuses you about Barbary lion and Cape lion? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Just as I was not confused about what I was talking about here (the tigers were not the point of what I was saying, but you could not understand what I was talking about), I am not confused about the Barbary and Cape lions, which are populations of lions whose common names were used a lot in scientific literature in the context of Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita respectively, before the reclassification, I am asking you a question. What are you supposed to call a Northern lion if not a "Northern lion",[6] and what are you supposed to call a Southern lion if not "Southern lion"?[7] Leo1pard (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I answered your last question already on 29 Aug 15:41, see above bolded for you: if the respective authority did not give a common name, the Latin name is used. Neither you nor the owner of a website are authorities for inventing or giving common names. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Common names have been used, and they are "Barbary lion" (or other names like "Atlas lion") and "Cape lion", but these are specific populations whose trinomina have been used for the 2 subspecies. What are you supposed to call the subspecies to help people distinguish them from the populations, other than the ones used by the iNaturalist?[6][7] Leo1pard (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

See again my reply from 29 Aug. The names Barbary lion + Cape lion have been COMMONLY used in scientific and popular publications for decades, for at least 10-15. And that is why they are COMMON NAMES: they have been coined long time ago. Today, with the changed understanding of the geographical range of the 2 subspecies, the only unambiguous names for them are their Latin names!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The 2 newly recognised subspecies overlap in Ethiopia or the Horn of Africa, according to the Cat Specialist Group,[4] unlike the Barbary and Cape populations, which were geographically separated by thousands of kilometres, and the CSG could not decide where to put lions in this region, meaning that unless you accept these lions are mixed between Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita,[5] there is ambiguity as to whether these lions should be classified as Panthera leo leo or Panthera leo melanochaita (which made the CSG put a question mark over the Horn of Africa), so the understanding of the subspecies of lions is not yet complete in that perspective, and the iNaturalist[6][7] warned that whereas common names vary by geography (and this can apply to "Serengeti lion"[8] for lions in the Serengeti subregion of East Africa, and "Kalahari lion"[9][10] for lions in the Kalahari subregion of Southern Africa), scientific names change from time to time, and that people are not likely to prefer scientific names (which are in Latin) to common names, especially as nobody or few people today would speak Latin, the CSG said that though they did recognise 2 subspecies, morphological diagnoses were currently unknown (and the work of Bertola et al. (2016)[5] is one of the studies that influenced what the CSG presented on the subspecies, another being the work of Barnett et al. in 2016),[11] and the IUCN said in 2016[12] that its recognition of the same was based on the work of Barnett et al., but that the work of Barnett et al.[11] is based only on mtDNA and that it could reflect female philopatry, not male philopatry, and that reminds me of the issue of lions in the Central African countries of Gabon and the Republic of Congo being maternally (but not necessarily paternally) related to lions in Southern Africa,[13] which is an issue, because the CSG subsumed lions in Central Africa to the Northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo), not the Southern subspecies (Panthera leo melanochaita),[4] meaning that whether lions in Central Africa and northern parts of East Africa are Panthera leo leo or Panthera leo melanochaita has not been fully resolved by the CSG's revision of subspecies of lions in 2017. In addition, we have been missing something here. Bertola et al. actually used the names Northern and Southern for the 2 subspecies,[5] so the iNaturalist is not alone in calling the 2 subspecies 'Northern'[6] and 'Southern'.[6] Leo1pard (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

And I see that the use of 'Northern' and 'Southern' for the subspecies is spreading. Leo1pard (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The names Northern lion and Southern lion are logical, but they are not established common names. They have only being used by iNaturalist. Bertola et al (2016) variously refered to them as the northern and southern subspecies or lineages or populations, but these were descriptions, not proposed names. Even if they were proposing a name, scientific publications don't determine common names, usage does.
On the other hand, using the trinomials for the article titles seems strange for such well known animals as lions. The problem is that Wikipedia requires sources. iNaturalist is not a particularly reliable source and in this case cites the US Fisheries and Wildlife Service.[14] The USFWS recommends dividing the lion into two subspecies based on the preliminary IUCN Cat Classification Task Force proposal (which has since been published), but they refer to the two subspecies by the scientific names throughout. Wikipedia naming guidelines suggest we should do the same for now.   Jts1882 | talk  13:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Jts1882!! I performed two searches for 'Northern lion' and 'Southern lion': 1) within Bertola et al. (2011 and 2016): they clearly refrained from coining vernacular names for the described clades; 2) in search engines: not a single publication refers to any of the two. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
If reliable scientific publications are not enough to name the subspecies, but usage amongst people is, then I found a fourth website, which not only makes use of the phrase "northern lion", but also "northern subspecies", besides 'southern' for other lions. Like I said, I saw the usage of 'Northern' and 'Southern' spreading. Leo1pard (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
They use 'northern' lions and 'northern' subpecies. The quotes are to make it clear they are using it to distinguish the two subspecies, not using it is as a formal name.   Jts1882 | talk  16:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I have however noticed something about the Southern subspecies. Names like "Southeast African lion"[15] or "East and Southern African lion"[16] have been used, and they can apply to the southern subspecies as it is recognised as comprising lions in Eastern and Southern Africa.[4] Leo1pard (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Surprise. John George Wood, using capital letters, referred to the Barbary lion as the "Northern Lion", and described the Cape or Southern African lion as its "Southern relative", in 1865![17] Leo1pard (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
What you FAILED TO NOTICE is that ALL these publications date to before revision of lion taxonomy (2017), hence are names for Panthera leo melanochaita and P. l. leo populations, respectively, but NOT for the subspecies as understood since 2017!! You created at least 20 pages with invalid and uncommon names for lions that only contain redirects to other pages with invalid names that you created. You seem to be quite fixated on names. What a waste of time and space, imo, to discuss this for daaayys on end! BhagyaMani (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
No, I did not fail to notice that, and I know that though the CSG did name felid species, they did not name any subspecies of felids, but that does not change the fact that they were named beforehand, how many times do I have to debunk what you say or do? Leo1pard (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
As it is, the trinomina used by the CSG for the subspecies do not solve everything. For example, there is ambiguity regarding lions in Ethiopia or the Horn of Africa,[4] because two clades of lions that were related to the Northern (P. l. leo) and Southern (P. l. melanochaita) subspecies were found to be there,[5] meaning that you cannot simply classify them under either P. l. leo or P. l. melanochaita, and it is not just this population of lions for which the CSG's taxonomic revision cannot be easily applied. Certain Central African lions were found to be related to the Southern[13] subspecies (P. l. melanochaita), so if the CSG meant that all lions in Central Africa should be subsumed to P. l. leo, or all in East Africa (particularly the Horn of Africa) should be subsumed to P. l. melanochaita, then they were wrong, because genetic assessments, including those they they referenced to come up with the revision, do not support those, and the lion is not the only felid species which they had trouble with, in recognising subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
On the Central African lions the CSG is clear. The population defined in the molecular studies as Central African lions belong to the northern subspecies. However, this population is confined to the northern part of Central Africa. Not all lions in the geographical or geopolitical region called Central Africa are part of this population. The south-western population of the southern subspecies extends into the southern part of the Central Africa region. The tropical rainforest acts as a clear biogeographical barrier for lions, unlike the situation in Ethiopia where the lion populations may overlap.   Jts1882 | talk  10:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
More specifically, lions in the northern part of Central Africa,[4] but even then, lions in the area of Virunga National Park, which is the northeastern part of the DRC, and is adjacent to Queen Elizabeth National Park in the East African country of Uganda, were found to be related to the Southern subspecies, which comprises the Haplotype 15,[5] and the Central African lions referred to in the study by Barnett et al. as being at least maternally related to Southern African lions were from the northern Central African countries of Gabon and the Republic of the Congo,[13] so even for northern Central African lions, there should be caution as to which lions belong to the Northern and Southern subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

And the names of the Eastern and Southern African populations continue to be used, like here, though caution should be made regarding those in the northern part of East Africa. Leo1pard (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

And I still see it as the case of you wanting them to have only what you want them to have, and things like this, and your comments above about the proper names existing before the CSG's revision or using scientific names, are in contrast to what you've done for members of other species, like here, where you were happy to use a proper name, even if it was used before the CSG's revision, and that was a huge comment using multiple sources about the name of a particular subspecies, and it's not like I couldn't do something similar for the lions, that is, using this reference[16] to merge the names of two populations that had been used often. Leo1pard (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It is an undeniable fact that melanochaita has been used since 1842, i.e. 176 years now. No other name has been established as long for the leopard in this geographical range!! Vernacular names used in newspaper articles are not relevant, they come and go. Scientific names don't change as frequently, but are long-lasting. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Self-contradiction, Melanochaita was used for a population of lions in the 19th century, and likewise orientalis for a population of leopards at around the same time, in the 19th century, and then both melanochaita and orientalis were applied to broader populations of lions and leopards respectively, due to revisions of subspecies,[4] but that did not stop you from using a proper name for the leopard, but you're complaining about using proper names for the lions. Leo1pard (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Though it was different to what I had done, I decided to respect your attempt to name that page on the leopard subspecies P. p. orientalis as "Far Eastern leopard", seeing its use in literature, so now, Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita should be redirected to Northern lion and East-Southern African lion, for similar reasons. Leo1pard (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You were keen on calling P. p. orientalis with a proper name, and I follow the same policy, but you don't? Leo1pard (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't care how frequently you change page titles and move content from one to the other. And will refrain from editing any of the lion pages that you created and moved back and forth in the past few weeks. Fact is that neither Bertola et al. (2016) nor Kitchener et al. (2017) introduced and proposed vernacular names for the 2 recognised subspecies. None of the various names that you used in the past weeks have been established in scientific literature since 2016, hence are not common names: I strongly advise you read this definition. As Jts1882 already pointed out with reference to Wikipedia naming guidelines that in such a case should scientific names be used throughout. BTW: the name 'Amur leopard' is a long-established vernacular name for this leopard subspecies, hence a common name. I'm tired of this ridiculous discussion with you on names. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

1) Amongst others things, the link that you sent me says "A common name is sometimes frequently used, but that is by no means always the case.[18]"

2) This reference[18] says that common names may be specific to certain places, and that they lack universality.

3) Names, like those of the eastern and southern populations of lions are commonly used,[15][19][20][21] and indeed, Bauer et al. had used "East and Southern African lion",[16]Bauer, H.; Chardonnet, P.; Nowell, K. (December 2005), Status and distribution of the lion (Panthera leo) in East and Southern Africa (PDF), Johannesburg, South Africa: East and Southern African lion Conservation Workshop, retrieved 2018-09-03</ref>

4) Like Jts1882 said, it also depends on usage. From what I see, after scientific names like orientalis and melanochaita in the 19th century, came names like "Amur leopard" and "Northern lion", and whereas the earliest use of "Amur leopard" that I see dates back to 1910, the names of the Northern and Southern lions date back to 1865,[17] and since then, a number of publications like that of Bertola et al.[5] have referred to the currently described subspecies using the words 'northern' and 'southern' (though the names of the eastern and southern populations havebeen used to the extent that I prefer to keep the other name), so firstly, the names that I used for the 2 subspecies are names from literature, and secondly, they have increasingly widespread application.

5) The names "Northern lion" and "Southern lion" are more common than you think, that[17] was not the only book that I found on their names, so redirect Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita back to Northern lion and East-Southern African lion. Leo1pard (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

As stated here, people are interested in specific information like regarding what an East African lion is,[15][19][20][21] or indeed, an Eastern-Southern African lion,[22] the recent revision of subspecies involving the use of scientific names (which was not fully resolved for lions the Horn of Africa by the Cat Specialist Group as of 2017)[4] does not necessarily affect that, people are quite likely to use proper names rather than scientific names (which are in Latin, a language that is not commonly used today), and these are not mere repetitions of what is already, for example, this article does not say who first used the name "Northern lion" or when,[17] and Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita should be shifted to the more detailed articles Northern lion and East-Southern African lion, respectively. Leo1pard (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Before I can show you books or publications on names, an idea that I had was to redirect these subspecies to African lion, with adjustments for the Asiatic lion, like its taxonomic history. Leo1pard (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I need to show you them, like this.[23] Leo1pard (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, we should not have 2 articles for each of the two newly described subspecies. Whereas my creation of the pages Northern lion and Southern lion (now named East-Southern African lion for a reason mentioned here) was due to an earlier discussion regarding the 2 newly classified subspecies, the turning of Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita from being redirects to Barbary lion and Cape lion, to articles of their own, which are to an extent based on Northern lion and East-Southern African lion, was not based on any discussion in any relevant talk-page, before Panthera leo leo got turned into an article and I could see what would eventually happen to Panthera leo melanochaita, after which I discussed it here. As for African lion, I turned it into an article, and mentioned it here, so as to have a second option regarding the merger, because I had difficulty in getting Panthera leo leo merged with Northern lion, and Panthera leo melanochaita merged with East-Southern African lion, despite talking about it for some time. Leo1pard (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Now, East African lion and Southern African lion have been reconverted into articles, with Panthera leo melanochaita a stub that links to both. Leo1pard (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Heptner, V. G.; Sludskii, A. A. (1992) [1972]. "Lion". Mlekopitajuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Moskva: Vysšaia Škola [Mammals of the Soviet Union, Volume II, Part 2]. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation. pp. 83–95. ISBN 978-90-04-08876-4. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Haas, S.K.; Hayssen, V.; Krausman, P.R. (2005). "Panthera leo" (PDF). Mammalian Species. 762: 1–11. doi:10.1644/1545-1410(2005)762[0001:PL]2.0.CO;2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 July 2017. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Wozencraft, W. C. (2005). "Panthera leo". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 546. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h Kitchener, A. C.; Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.; Eizirik, E.; Gentry, A.; Werdelin, L.; Wilting, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Abramov, A. V.; Christiansen, P.; Driscoll, C.; Duckworth, J. W.; Johnson, W.; Luo, S.-J.; Meijaard, E.; O’Donoghue, P.; Sanderson, J.; Seymour, K.; Bruford, M.; Groves, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Nowell, K.; Timmons, Z.; Tobe, S. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News (Special Issue 11).
  5. ^ a b c d e f g Bertola, L.D.; Jongbloed, H.; Van Der Gaag, K.J.; De Knijff, P.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Bauer, H.; Henschel, P.; White, P.A.; Driscoll, C.A.; Tende, T. (2016). "Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)". Scientific Reports. 6: 30807. doi:10.1038/srep30807. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ a b c d e f g Northern Lion (Panthera leo ssp. leo), iNaturalist, retrieved 2018-06-03
  7. ^ a b c d e Southern Lion (Panthera leo ssp. melanochaita), iNaturalist, retrieved 2018-06-03
  8. ^ Schaller, G. B. (1972). The Serengeti lion: A study of predator–prey relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-73639-6.
  9. ^ Roberts, A. (1948). "Descriptions of some new subspecies of mammals". Annals of the Transvaal Museum. 21 (1): 63–69.
  10. ^ "Kalahari xeric savanna". Worldwildife.org. 2016. Retrieved 2016-07-27.
  11. ^ a b Barnett, Ross; Yamaguchi, Nobuyuki; Shapiro, Beth; Ho, Simon Y. W.; Barnes, Ian; Sabin, Richard; Werdelin, Lars; Cuisin, Jacques; Larson, Greger (2014). "Revealing the maternal demographic history of Panthera leo using ancient DNA and a spatially explicit genealogical analysis". 70 (14). BMC Evolutionary Biology. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-14-70. Retrieved 2018-08-31. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  12. ^ {{IUCN |assessor=Bauer, H. |assessor2=Packer, C. |assessor3=Funston, P. F. |assessor4=Henschel, P. |assessor5=Nowell, K. |year=2016 |id=15951 |taxon=Panthera leo |version=2017-3}}
  13. ^ a b c Barnett, R.; Sinding, M. H.; Vieira, F. G.; Mendoza, M. L.; Bonnet, M.; Araldi, A.; Kienast, I.; Zambarda, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Henschel, P.; Gilbert, M. T. (2018). "No longer locally extinct? Tracing the origins of a lion (Panthera leo) living in Gabon". Conservation Genetics. 19 (3): 1−8. doi:10.1007/s10592-017-1039-2. Cite error: The named reference "Barnettetal2018" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  14. ^ US Fisheries and Wildlife Service. "Listing Two Lion Subspecies; Final rule" (PDF). Federal Register. 80 (24): 80000–80056.
  15. ^ a b c Jackson, D. (2010). "Introduction". Lion. London: Reaktion Books. pp. 1–21. ISBN 1861897359.
  16. ^ a b c Bauer, H.; Chardonnet, P.; Nowell, K. (December 2005), Status and distribution of the lion (Panthera leo) in East and Southern Africa (PDF), Johannesburg, South Africa: East and Southern African lion Conservation Workshop, retrieved 2018-09-03
  17. ^ a b c d Wood, John George (1865). "Felidæ; or the Cat Tribe". The illustrated natural history. Boradway, Ludgate Hill, New York City: Routledge. p. 147. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  18. ^ a b Kruckeberg, Arthur (1991). The Natural History of Puget Sound Country – Appendix I: The naming of plants and animals. Seattle: University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-97477-4.
  19. ^ a b "What Will It Take to Save the East African Lion from Extinction? Hunting or Herding?". Africa Geographic. 2013-05-13.
  20. ^ a b Kaplan, Sarah (2016-11-02). "Teddy Roosevelt shot this lion 107 years ago. The world is about to see it again". The Washington Post. Bangor Daily.
  21. ^ a b Kamoga, J. (2018). "East African lions dying of poisoning". The Observer. Retrieved 2018-02-24.
  22. ^ Barnett, R.; Yamaguchi, N.; Barnes, I.; Cooper, A. (2006). "The origin, current diversity and future conservation of the modern lion (Panthera leo)" (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 273 (1598): 2119–2125. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3555. PMC 1635511. PMID 16901830. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 August 2007. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  23. ^ Beolens, B.; Watkins, M.; Grayson, M. (2009-10-07). The Eponym Dictionary of Mammals. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 110. ISBN 0-8018-9533-2.


A whole series of edits regarding populations and subspecies

Jackie the MGM lion was from the Nubian part of Sudan[1]
Captive lion at Khartoum Zoo, Sudan

Despite talking to him since last year, BhagyaMani has once again made a lot of misleading edits regarding populations of lions. For example, 1) A number of Central African lions (particularly the Congo lion (formerly Panthera leo azandica) are of southern subspecies (Panthera leo melanochaita),[2] whereas others, such as the Cameroon lion (formerly Panthera leo kamptzi) are of the northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo),[3][4] but BhagyaMani has insisted again and again that Central African lions are P. l. leo and not P. l. melanochaita. 2) The northern and southern subspecies are both present in northern parts of East Africa, particularly Ethiopia or the Horn of Africa, and likely overlap there, but BhagyaMani would make it look as if for example Ethiopian and Somali lions are of the southern subspecies. 3) That all Congo lions are Southern African lions, even though the Democratic Republic of the Congo is in Central Africa. 4) That the Nubian lion (formerly P. l. nubica), from a region that is shared between Egypt and Sudan in Northeast Africa, is the same as the Barbary lion (P. l. leo) of the Maghreb. That is like saying that Sudanese lions are Barbary lions.

This is a list of formerly described subspecies, and note that Dubach et al.[5] said that nine subspecies were recognised in East Africa alone!

Table of formerly described lion subspecies.
Northwest Africa
Subspecies Description Image
Barbary lion (P. l. leo), also called the "Atlas lion", "Berber lion" or "North African lion" Formerly found in the Maghreb, this is the nominate lion subspecies from North Africa. It is extinct in the wild due to excessive hunting; the last, known Barbary lion in the wilderness was killed in Morocco in 1920.[6][7] This was regarded as being one of the largest subspecies,[8] with reported lengths of 3.0–3.3 m (9.8–10.8 ft) and weights of more than 200 kg (440 lb) for males. Besides West and certain Central African lions, it is more closely related to the Asiatic lion than to other African lions.[3] A number of animals in captivity are likely to be Barbary lions,[9] particularly the 90 animals descended from the Moroccan Royal collection at Rabat Zoo.[10]

North Africa: Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia

Eurasia
Subspecies Description Image
Asiatic lion (P. l. persica), also known as "Indian lion" or "Persian lion" Is found in Gir Forest National Park of northwestern India. Once was widespread from Turkey, across Southwest Asia, to India and Pakistan,[11] now 523 exist in and near the Gir Forest in the Saurashtran region of Gujarat.[12][13] Genetic evidence suggests its ancestors split from the ancestors of sub-Saharan African lions between 203 and 74 thousand years ago.[14] Its closest relatives are North and West-Central African lions.[3] Subforms were referred to as the "Bengal lion" (P. l. bengalensis), "Persian lion" or "[15][16]

Southern Europe: Formerly Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia
West Asia: Formerly Armenia, Azerbaijan, Baluchistan, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, North Caucasus, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Yemen
South Asia: (currently India and formerly Pakistan)

West Africa
Subspecies Description Image
Senegal lion (P. l. senegalensis), also known as "West African lion" Found in West Africa.[17][18] It is currently listed as critically endangered, as of 2015.

West Africa: Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana,[19] Mali, Nigeria, Niger and Senegal

Gambian lion (P. l. gambianus) Formerly found in the Gambia.[20]
Central Africa
Subspecies Description Image
Cameroon lion (P. l. kamptzi) Found in Cameroon and the region south of Lake Chad, in Central or Western Africa.[21]
Northeast Congo lion (P. l. azandica), or simply the "Congo lion" Found in the northeastern parts of the Congo, adjacent to Uganda.[17] It is currently extinct in Rwanda.

Central Africa:[22] (Democratic Republic of the Congo)

Northeast or East Africa
Subspecies Description Image
Nubian lion (P. l. nubica) From Nubia in Northeast Africa.[23]
Somali lion (P. l. somaliensis syn. P. l. webbiensis From Somaliland or Somalia, East Africa.[24][25]
Masai lion (P. l. massaica) Found in East Africa, from Ethiopia and Kenya to Tanzania and Mozambique;[18] a local population is known as the "Tsavo lion".

East Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda

Ethiopian lion (P. l. roosevelti syn. P. l. abyssinica), also known as "Abyssinian lion" and "Addis Ababa lion" 15 captive lions in the Addis Ababa Zoo.[26] Researchers compared the microsatellite variations over ten loci of fifteen lions in captivity with those of six different wild lion populations. They determined that these lions are genetically unique and presumably that "their wild source population is similarly unique." These lions were part of a collection of the late Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia.[27]

Northeast Africa: (Ethiopia)

Kilimanjaro lion (P. l. sabakiensis) From the northern vicinity of Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa.[28]
Ugandan lion (P. l. nyanzae) Found in Uganda, East Africa.[21]
Sotik lion (P. l. hollisteri), also known as "Hollister's lion" or "Lake Victoria lion" Found on the eastern bank of Lake Victoria in Kenya, East Africa.[21]
Southern Africa
Subspecies Description Image
Cape lion (P. l. melanochaita) Formerly found from the Cape Province to Natal, South Africa.[29][30]
Katanga lion (P. l. bleyenberghi), also known as the "Angola lion", "Bleyenbergh's lion" or "Southwest African lion" Found in southwestern Africa. It is among the largest populations of African lions. The type specimen was from Katanga in what in what used to be the Belgian Congo in central Africa.[24][31]

Central Africa: Formerly Katanga (Congo-Kinshasa)

Southern Africa: Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe[18]

Kruger lion (P. l. krugeri), also known as the "Southeast African lion", "South African lion" or "Transvaal lion" Found in the Transvaal region of southeast Africa, including Kruger National Park.[18]

Southern Africa: (Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland, Zimbabwe)

Kalahari lion (P. l. vernayi) Found in the Kalahari Region of Southern Africa.[21]

Leo1pard (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Leo1pard: this is way way over the top - this level of detail about subspecies no longer recognised as distinct is totally unnecessary. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Casliber Even if it is unnecessary for the main page, it is for this talk-page, because, despite making several attempts to talk to BhagyaMani about the error of his ways (for example, [8], [9], [10] and [11]), BhagyaMani has a habit of ignoring what I try to talk to him about, and making several edits that reflect a WP:biased understanding of lions, for instance, insisting that all lions in the Central African country of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are Southern African lions, and after my first edit, at first trying to hide the relationship between Asiatic lions and West African lions, and saying that the name of the Central African lion did not exist in any of the sources that I provided, when in fact I already gave him one sources that did, which is this.[32] Leo1pard (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I will have a look at the articles you're mentioning. We need to get 3rd and 4th opinions to stop the edit warring. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I would prefer that discussion on article talk pages be restricted to improvement of the article, there is guidance at the top of this page on avoiding the confusion and disruption that is often generated in personalising them.

My opinion [think what you will of me] is that reliable sources only associate vernacular with the systematic names they have preferred since Linnaeus, it follows they are the most common name and the often fascinating history of what the organism has been called in English sources—the 'common names'—can be discussed in the article. The notion that one of the latter can replace the systematic name either slightly or greatly falls foul of core policies on sourcing and pov. If this article were moved to Panthera leo, the verifiable name in English (and other languages [which is good, no?]), the other names can be directly attributable to sources [not talk page discussions] and the reader directed to appropriate content via the current understanding of its subpopulations. That is what we are doing here, as I understand editing, and would prefer that we avoid any involvement and investment in assigning another name to replace and suppress the systematic one. Read any good book on animals and they will propound a similar sentiment in their introduction to their own use of nomenclature and taxonomy. — cygnis insignis 08:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. In case there is a barnstar for finding the title, I'm going with Taxonomy of Panthera leo, although Taxonomy of Panthera sounds more interesting to me. My view is that 'taxonomy', as defined elsewhere [OED], also includes discussion of non-systematic names that arise; thorough sources often set aside a paragraph on who named an organism what, and when, and why [it is sociologically interesting, if nothing else]. A split to a new article may solve anything that may emerge as undesirable content forking, with a broader scope to elaborate on what has been proposed and accepted in notable sources. — cygnis insignis 11:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment. With respect to the FAR I think there is a good case to review any article after a decade and thousands of edits. However, most of the issues with this article concern the subspecies and populations. This is a large article so only a short section on subspecies is necessary, with a mention that there have been many subspecies recognised in the past but current thinking only recognises two subspecies and some significant populations worth conserving within them. Then the details can go in a Subspecies of lion article, along the lines of Subspecies of Canis lupus. That way the historical and current thinking can be presented in more detail, along with the status of extinct lions as possible subspecies. I think this would include the information in an efficient and practical way and minimise potential disruption to the featured article. My position on the common names and populations can be found elsewhere and is more relevant to the broader discussion of lion articles that is sorely needed.   Jts1882 | talk  08:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I fully agree with Cygnis insignis and Jts1882!! I had earlier tried to explain that there is no common name (yet) for the subspecies as redefined in 2017, see section #The newly classified subspecies, where I was repeatedly pinged. I searched libraries and internet for names like 'Northern lion', 'Southern lion', 'East-Southern lion', results: 0 scientific publication using any of these. I had also proposed possible solutions to end the dispute on lion taxonomy, see Talk:Panthera_leo_leo#Solution?, including a page titled Lion taxonomy. But alas to no avail. True of course also is that there is plenty of scientific sources about lion ecology, behaviour, threats and conservation issues that have not been addressed in the mainspace yet. So I find it rather ridiculous to spend so much time on history of taxonomy and use of names. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I have found names like "Eastern-Southern African lion".[33] Cygnis insignis I would also like to say that there is an issue with the revision of subspecies by the Cat Classification Taskforce of the Cat Specialist Group: Uncertainty. They expressed uncertainty over subspecies of lions, besides subspecies of other felid species. Though they said that they currently recognised 2 subspecies, Panthera leo leo (referred to as the 'northern' subspecies by people like Bertola et al.) for lions in North, West and Central Africa and Asia, and Panthera leo melanochaita (referred to as the 'southern' subspecies by people like Bertola et al.) for lions in Eastern and Southern Africa, they admitted on Page 72 that "morphological diagnoses are currently unknown," and in the map with the caption "Distribution of subspecies of lion", they put a question mark over Ethiopia, which is in the Horn of Africa, a northern subregion of East Africa, saying that the contact zone between the 2 subspecies is somewhere in that country,[4] and this is based on the work of Bertola et al.,[3] which suggests that the northeastern clade of the southern subspecies overlaps with the central clade of the northern subspecies in Ethiopia and Somalia in the Horn of Africa, and possibly northern parts of Kenya and Uganda, to form a genetically mixed population of lions, or at least that both subspecies are present in Ethiopia and this part of Africa.[34] Leo1pard (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Leo1pard: I am not clear on why I was pinged here? These appear to be sources about what is known about the population and where uncertainty still lays, whatever improvement is being proposed is clouded by an unproductive and adversarial debate. — cygnis insignis 10:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
To put it simply, there is a big problem with the taxonomy of the lion, besides for other felid species, that is uncertainty, so the use of the scientific names isn't always going to be helpful. See the question mark that they used in Page 72.[4]
@Leo1pard: forget the common names. As there appears to be confusion and a lack of consensus, any attempt to define a consensus (especially with the redefined subspecies) would be OR. So they should not be focussed on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I have gone through the various references, and I can tell you that what I've said about is not OR. For example, the Cat Specialist Group used a question mark regarding their classification of subspecies of lions,[4] and that's why I've been cautioning BhagyaMani about classifying populations that were found to be related to both the northern and southern subspecies, that is the Central African[2] and Northeast African populations,[3][34] against treating them as belonging to one subspecies each. Leo1pard (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
And Casliber, I have decided to avoid editing this article for the time being, because of the discussion, but you have used this opportunity to remove valid links including Panthera shawi? Leo1pard (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Seealso lists are generally a bad idea - in about 99% of cases, either the item is linked enough to be discussed in the article or remote enough that it is irrelevant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
This isn't according to the rules, this is an WP:opinion. Leo1pard (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:OPINION is about including points of view in articles. It is not relevant to opinions on talk pages about should and shouldn't go in articles. That is one purpose of talk pages. However, I agree that Wikipedia policy does not say "see also" sections are a bad idea (although they are discouraged in medical sections). MOS:SEEALSO states 'one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics', i.e. that the section can contain links to indirectly related material that is not readily incorporated in the article. I think where possible it is better to include them as hatnotes in relevant sections. If no section is relevant enough, the relevance of the link should be questioned. This is subjective, though.   Jts1882 | talk  09:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Exactly - occasionally I find things worth sticking in a seealso section but it is pretty rare. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Strongly agree with that. I read 'See also' sections as content that might be incorporated into an article, and remove items in those when I have done that [or consider it off-topic]. They have a place in undeveloped articles, and I prefer any exception (eg, "copyright") to be directed from the 'External links' section of a peer reviewed article. — cygnis insignis 12:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not like articles like Panthera shawi are unrelated to this. Leo1pard (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

refs

References

  1. ^ Joseph, Albright (2018-06-13). "Original MGM lion rests in N.J. & other historical tidbits". Newjersey.com. Retrieved 2018-06-13. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ a b Barnett, R.; Sinding, M. H.; Vieira, F. G.; Mendoza, M. L.; Bonnet, M.; Araldi, A.; Kienast, I.; Zambarda, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Henschel, P.; Gilbert, M. T. (2018). "No longer locally extinct? Tracing the origins of a lion (Panthera leo) living in Gabon". Conservation Genetics. 19 (3): 1–8. doi:10.1007/s10592-017-1039-2.
  3. ^ a b c d e Bertola, L.D.; Jongbloed, H.; Van Der Gaag, K.J.; De Knijff, P.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Bauer, H.; Henschel, P.; White, P.A.; Driscoll, C.A.; Tende, T. (2016). "Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)". Scientific Reports. 6: 30807. doi:10.1038/srep30807. PMC 4973251. PMID 27488946. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ a b c d Kitchener, A. C.; Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.; Eizirik, E.; Gentry, A.; Werdelin, L.; Wilting, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Abramov, A. V.; Christiansen, P.; Driscoll, C.; Duckworth, J. W.; Johnson, W.; Luo, S.-J.; Meijaard, E.; O’Donoghue, P.; Sanderson, J.; Seymour, K.; Bruford, M.; Groves, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Nowell, K.; Timmons, Z.; Tobe, S. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News. Special Issue 11: 71–73. ISSN 1027-2992.
  5. ^ Dubach, J.; Patterson, B. D.; Briggs, M. B.; Venzke, K.; Flamand, J.; Stander, P.; Scheepers, L.; Kays, R. W. (2005). "Molecular genetic variation across the southern and eastern geographic ranges of the African lion, Panthera leo". Conservation Genetics. 6 (1): 15–24. doi:10.1007/s10592-004-7729-6.
  6. ^ Nowell, K.; Jackson, P. (1996). "Panthera Leo". Wild Cats: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan (PDF). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group. pp. 17–21, 37–41. ISBN 2-8317-0045-0.
  7. ^ Black, S. A.; Fellous, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Roberts, D. L. (2013). "Examining the Extinction of the Barbary Lion and Its Implications for Felid Conservation". PLoS ONE. 8 (4): e60174. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...860174B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060174. PMC 3616087. PMID 23573239.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  8. ^ Yadav, P. R. (2004). Vanishing And Endangered Species. Discovery Publishing House. pp. 176–78. ISBN 81-7141-776-0. Retrieved 14 December 2010.
  9. ^ Burger, Joachim; Hemmer, Helmut (2006). "Urgent call for further breeding of the relic zoo population of the critically endangered Barbary lion (Panthera leo leo Linnaeus 1758)" (PDF). European Journal of Wildlife Research. 52: 54–58. doi:10.1007/s10344-005-0009-z.
  10. ^ Black, Simon; Yamaguchi, Nobuyuki; Harland, Adrian; Groombridge, Jim (2010). "Maintaining the genetic health of putative Barbary lions in captivity: an analysis of Moroccan Royal Lions". European Journal of Wildlife Research. 56: 21–31. doi:10.1007/s10344-009-0280-5.
  11. ^ "Asiatic Lion—History". Asiatic Lion Information Centre. Wildlife Conservation Trust of India. 2006. Retrieved 15 September 2007.
  12. ^ Singh, H. S.; Gibson, L. (2011). "A conservation success story in the otherwise dire megafauna extinction crisis: The Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) of Gir forest". Biological Conservation. 144 (5): 1753–1757. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.009.
  13. ^ Meena, V. (2016), Wildlife and human impacts in the Gir landscape. In: Agrawal, P.K., Verghese, A., Radhakrishna, S. and Subaharan, K. (eds)., Human Animal Conflict in Agro-Pastoral Context: Issues & Policies, New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research
  14. ^ Burger, J.; Rosendahl, W.; Loreille, O.; Hemmer, H.; Eriksson, T.; Götherström, A.; Hiller, J.; Collins, M. J.; Wess, T.; Alt, K. W. (2004). "Molecular phylogeny of the extinct cave lion Panthera leo spelaea" (PDF). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 30 (3): 841–849. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2003.07.020. PMID 15012963. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 September 2007. Retrieved 20 September 2007. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  15. ^ The Penny Cyclopædia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Vol. 14. Charles Knight and Co. 1846-01-09. Retrieved 2014-08-28.
  16. ^ Charles Knight, ed. (1867). The English Cyclopaedia. Retrieved 2014-08-28.
  17. ^ a b Sunquist, M. E. and Sunquist, F. C. (2009). Family Felidae (Cats). In: Don E. Wilson, Russell A. Mittermeier (eds.): Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Volume 1: Carnivores. Lynx Edicions, 2009, ISBN 978-84-96553-49-1, pp. 137 ff.
  18. ^ a b c d Macdonald, David Wayne (2006). The Encyclopedia of Mammals. pp. 628–635. ISBN 0-87196-871-1.
  19. ^ F. M. Angelici; A. Mahama; L. Rossi (20 July 2015). "The lion in Ghana: its historical and current status" (PDF). Animal Biodiversity and Conservation. 38.2: 151–162. Retrieved 26 February 2016. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  20. ^ Gray, J. E. (1843). List of the specimens of Mammalia in the collection of the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum.
  21. ^ a b c d Heptner, V. G.; Sludskii, A. A. (1992) [1972]. "Lion". Mlekopitajuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Moskva: Vysšaia Škola [Mammals of the Soviet Union, Volume II, Part 2]. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation. pp. 83–95. ISBN 978-90-04-08876-4. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
  22. ^ "United Nations Statistics Division- Standard Country and Area Codes Classifications (M49)". un.org.
  23. ^ Hemmer, H. (1974). "Untersuchungen zur Stammesgeschichte der Pantherkatzen (Pantherinae) Teil 3. Zur Artgeschichte des Löwen Panthera (Panthera) leo (Linnaeus, 1758)". Veröffentlichungen der Zoologischen Staatssammlung (in German). 17: 167–280.
  24. ^ a b Haas, S. K.; Hayssen, V.; Krausman, P. R. (2005). "Panthera leo" (PDF). Mammalian Species. 762: 1–11. doi:10.1644/1545-1410(2005)762[0001:PL]2.0.CO;2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 July 2017. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  25. ^ Allen, J. A. (1924). "Carnivora Collected By The American Museum Congo Expedition". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 47: 73–281.
  26. ^ "A New, Genetically Distinct Lion Population is Found". News Watch. National Geographic Society. 30 November 2012. Retrieved 23 January 2013. The Addis Ababa zoo lions have dark manes and small bodies, unlike other African lions. But life in captivity can sometimes influence appearance. A team of researchers, led by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany and the University of York in the UK, checked to see if the lions really are different by comparing DNA samples of 15 lions from the zoo to six populations of wild lions. Their genetic analysis revealed that the gene sequence of all fifteen lions were unique and showed little sign of inbreeding.
  27. ^ Bruche, S.; Gusset, M.; Lippold, S.; Barnett, R.; Eulenberger, K.; Junhold, J.; Driscoll, C. A.; Hofreiter, M. (2012). "A genetically distinct lion (Panthera leo) population from Ethiopia". European Journal of Wildlife Research. 59 (2): 215–225. doi:10.1007/s10344-012-0668-5.
  28. ^ Lönnberg, E. (1910). "Mammals". In Sjöstedt, Y. (ed.). Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Schwedischen Zoologischen Expedition nach dem Kilimandjaro, dem Meru und den umgebenden Massaisteppen Deutsch-Ostafrikas 1905–1906. Volume 1. Uppsala: Königlich Schwedische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
  29. ^ Allen, G. M. (1939). "A Checklist of African Mammals". Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. 83: 1–763.
  30. ^ Mazak, V. (1975). "Notes on the Black-maned Lion of the Cape, Panthera leo melanochaita (Ch. H. Smith, 1842) and a Revised List of the Preserved Specimens". Verhandelingen Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (64): 1–44.
  31. ^ Lönnberg, E. (1914). "New and rare mammals from Congo". Revue de Zoologie Africaine (3): 273–278.
  32. ^ Pocock, R. I. (1939). "Panthera leo". The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia. – Volume 1. London: Taylor and Francis Ltd. pp. 212–222.
  33. ^ Barnett, R.; Yamaguchi, N.; Barnes, I.; Cooper, A. (2006). "The origin, current diversity and future conservation of the modern lion (Panthera leo)" (PDF). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 273 (1598): 2119–2125. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3555. PMC 1635511. PMID 16901830. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 August 2007. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  34. ^ a b Bertola, L.D.; Jongbloed, H.; Van Der Gaag, K.J.; De Knijff, P.; Yamaguchi, N.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Bauer, H.; Henschel, P.; White, P.A.; Driscoll, C.A.; Tende, T. (2016). "Supporting Information: Phylogeographic patterns in Africa and High Resolution Delineation of genetic clades in the Lion (Panthera leo)" (PDF). Scientific Reports. 6: 30807. doi:10.1038/srep30807. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

Removal of other referenced content

Casliber Before I can edit it, may I ask what is the meaning of this? I used this reference[1] to help to explain why it is the case that the size ratio of the elephant to the lion is significant as mentioned, I did add information regarding it, contrary to what you said. Leo1pard (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

For starters the book says "young elephants" not "even adult elephants", so the sentence you added does not match the source at all. And the sentences the new material splices are both referenced to the reference at the end of the sentence after. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
It says that though it's usually young elephants that lions take, they can even team up to take down fully-grown ones,[1] and even Compion and Power said that though they usually preyed on young elephants, that was not always the case.[2] Leo1pard (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I missed the part in the book you supplied. Still, the book is likely getting its information from the article, so we're essentially using two refs for the same thing. Hence the second one is redundant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
We can't assume that the book is using the same reference, even if likely (I can't access the reference section of the book). If they are, the book is a secondary source so would be the preferred reference by wikipedia policy (WP:SECONDARY). I think both references should be included. The paragraph on lions and elephants is fairly clear about lions occasionally hunting adult elephants and the observation about the diet sometimes being 20% elephant meat is one worthy of inclusion.[3]   Jts1882 | talk  12:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Sunquist, Fiona; Sunquist, Mel (2014-10-02). "Bibliography". The Wild Cat Book: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Cats. China: University of Chicago Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-2261-4576-X.
  2. ^ Power, R. J.; Compion, R. X. S. (2009). "Lion predation on elephants in the Savuti, Chobe National Park, Botswana". African Zoology. 44 (1): 36–44. doi:10.3377/004.044.0104.
  3. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZH6aBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=%22The%20Wild%20Cat%20Book%3A%20Everything%20You%20Ever%20Wanted%20to%20Know%20about%20Cats%22&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Wild%20Cat%20Book:%20Everything%20You%20Ever%20Wanted%20to%20Know%20about%20Cats%22&f=false

Proposed merger of Northern lion and Panthera leo leo

Okay, I have gone and proposed a merger of these two articles, discuss at Talk:Northern_lion#Merger_proposal Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

African lion nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African lion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: The discussion was closed with consensus to redirect to Lion.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Cape lion, East African lion and Southern African lion into Panthera leo melanochaita

I have also suggested Cape lion, East African lion and Southern African lion be merged into Panthera leo melanochaita - see Talk:Panthera_leo_melanochaita#Merger_proposal Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Physical comparison of tigers and lions

I nominated the article for deletion of the article for the second time. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

BhagyaMani An error occurred which I spoke to him about, so I think that it's in his interests that not too much attention to what he does is drawn, particularly by dropping a message on his space, because he made his IP address clear whilst doing this. Leo1pard (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC); edited 09:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lion/Archive_4&oldid=1140127317"