Jump to content

Talk:Saber-toothed predator/Archive 2

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

Requested move 7 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. A very interesting case. As a non-expert in the field, I appreciate the detailed comments in the discussion, pitting various rationales for naming this article and perhaps changing its scope. The gist of the disagreements center around two issues:

  1. Does the current title match the current article contents?
  2. If it doesn't, then which title should reflect the larger scope of contents?

Editors are divided even on the answer to question 1, so there is no hope of answering question 2. Hence my assessment of "no consensus" at this stage.

However, there seems to be agreement that the current title "Saber-toothed cat" is a strong (albeit deceptive) WP:COMMONNAME for prehistoric felids and also that morphological evolution has led to sabertooth forms in numerous species. Some wikis in other major languages also focus on felids, e.g. fr:Tigre à dents de sabre, while mentioning in the lead that Thylacosmilus was a marsupial. Perhaps the way forward is to keep the current title for this article which mostly discusses felids, while creating a new WP:DABCONCEPT page about the sabertooth trait, perhaps at Sabertooth (morphology). That would make sense from a casual reader's standpoint, if the experts can agree on scoping and contents for such an article. — JFG talk 08:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that the Spanish Wikipedia has taken this approach, calling their article es:Dientes de sable and explaining it as a morphological trait emerging from convergent evolution, before listing examples. — JFG talk 10:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Saber-toothed cat → Saber-toothed predator or Sabertooth – As discussed several places above, the current title only refers to those saber-toothed animals within feliformia (cats and close relatives), or even just Machairodontinae, not the other saber-toothed animals also covered by the article (gorgonopsians, creodonts, and marsupials). The scope of the title is therefore narrower than the actual content. Last move request stalled because some people didn't like the term "ecomorph", so now the more common term "predator" is proposed; "carnivore" could also work, though it could be confused with the taxonomic term carnivora. The simple term Sabertooth has been proposed below, and is also a good option, though generic. FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a precedence to refer to saber-toothed mammaliforms as "saber-toothed predators" instead of "cats"?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
See sources listed in the former discussion.[1] You are looking at the premise upside down; there are no reliable sources that do refer to non-feliform saber-toothed animals as "saber-toothed cats", at best they only use the word "cat" in quote marks, which is not appropriate for an article title. Therefore, the current title is wrong, whatever new title we come up with. Sources discussing these other animals refer to them as whatever kind of animal they are, preceded by the word "saber-toothed", such as in "saber-toothed marsupial", etc. Therefore we need to find a common denominator for these animals to follow the common term "saber-toothed". "Predator" or "carnivore" are the best bets. See for example "saber-toothed marsupial predator"[2], or "saber-toothed marsupial carnivore"[3]. In this source, for example, the two terms are contrasted: "a placental saber-toothed cat from North America and a saber-toothed marsupial from Australia".[4] See also Antón 2013 (page 5 and the preface) for a long explanation of this issue.[5] He simply refers to them all as "sabertooths", which is probably too generic for an article title here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I clearly agree with changing the title of this page, but I would not recommend saber-toothed "carnivore" or "predator. Some fish and reptiles have saber teeth, including an aptly-named group called Sabertooth fish. This article is meant to represent the synapsids with saber-teeth, so I would recommend renaming it to "saber-toothed synapsid" or something of a similar scope. IJReid discuss 01:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
"Saber-toothed mammaliforms"?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
But are those fish and reptiles ever called "saber-toothed predators"? If not, it should not be a problem. Anyhow, "mammaliform" wouldn't work, since gorgonopsia is outside the group. Synapsid might wok, but I don't think they are referred to as such much as a whole. Predator and carnivore seem to have been used a bit, though. FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and suggest split: We should not have one article covering completely unrelated organisms that happen to share a single feature of convergent evolution. They should have separate articles, and if necessary we can also have an article on the convergent evolution of sabre-like teeth.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
What is it you are opposing, then? This article would have to be renamed in any case (it is about the wider subject of saber-toothed predatory mammals and relatives), even if we split off sabre-toothed cat as a new article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Is SMcCandlish perhaps proposing that this article be removed altogether, with their content being merged into the respective pages of the organisms mentioned? In any case, however, I feel that this article serves the purpose of covering the "convergent evolution of sabre-like teeth" as proposed. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, but yes, the subject of convegently evolved "saber-toothed predators" is a real scientific subject and warrants an article, the problem is just what to call such an article. The current title is just too narrow to cover it. Saber-toothed "cat" is just a sub-subject, and I don't even think it needs to be split. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
That would be the best term for the subject, yes, it is just so generic that it would be problematic as a Wikipedia article title. As you can see, the title is already a disambiguation page. But I would support "sabertooth" over the current title in any case, just wondering whether others will too. Other steps could be to add something in parenthesis, but the problem is what that word would be. "Ecomorph" would be the most accurate, but there was some opposition to that in the earlier request. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Good point re the dab page. I see Sabertooth is actually a redirect to the dab page Sabretooth. I think this could usurp the redirect; this appears to be the easy primary topic among things just called "Sabertooth". If disambiguation is needed, it could be done with something recognizable like Sabertooth (mammal).--Cúchullain t/c 15:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
That's where another problem comes in, the term also includes animals that are related to mammals, but not mammals themselves (gorgonopsians). The most inclusive grouping that includes both mammals and gorngonopsians would be Therapsida, but that is not exactly a widely familiar term either... But I will add sabertooth as a possibly above... FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I imagine gorgonopsians are close enough that people would not be confused to find them discussed in an article called Sabertooth (mammal), if disambiguation is really necessary.--Cúchullain t/c 14:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Could Sabertooth (predator) or similar work?--Cúchullain t/c 15:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think it should usurp Sabertooth, unless we also decide to move the Sabretooth dab page to a new (disambiguation) location as well. Sabertooth and sabretooth are just WP:ENGVAR varieties of the same term aren't they?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs)
Yes, that's a problem. Hence we need some kind of suffix after "sabertoothed" for this article. Sabertoothed itself is usually just used as a prefix to more specific words. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, these animals are clearly the primary topic among those using the "Sabertooth" spelling. Excluding partial title matches like sabertooth blenny and entries like Smilodon that are discussed here, it gets 95.5% of the page views.[10] "Sabretooth" is more ambiguous almost entirely due to Marvel Comics' Sabretooth (comics); the other "Sabretooth" uses aren't nearly as significant or widely viewed. Even still, minus PTMs, this article receives 50.4% of "Sabretooth" traffic.[11] I'd argue it's more significant than any others of any spelling, but especially of "Sabertooth". When you consider that it functions as a WP:BROADCONCEPT article for other widely trafficked articles like Smilodon, the gap widens considerably.--Cúchullain t/c 14:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's an WP:ENGVAR issue. Judging by Google books and JSTOR, both spellings seem to occur in both British and American sources. American sources look especially varied; this "Sabertooth" book is American, as are both Sabretooth (comics) Sabretooth (film), for example. It looks more like two spellings of the same word, one of which is more ambiguous than the other largely due to Wolverine's enemy.--Cúchullain t/c 15:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current (neutral on the hyphen) title is supported by WP:COMMONNAME. The technical definition of "cat" tends pedantic, we shouldn't get too hung up about it. So, the non-cats come from "feliform carnivoran families". What is "feliform"? Apparently it is "cat-like". "Cat" can be read as a loosely defined descriptive term, it is not necessarily a tightly defined taxonomy. Attempting to force tight definitions leads to false corrections and isolated absurdities, and it a good underlying reason for Wikipedia to rest with WP:COMMONNAME, and to not to attempt to correct common usage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    • From what I can tell, "Saber-tooth cat" is rarely used for the animals that aren't cats, except when they put "cat" in quote marks. We need a term that can better reflect the topic.--Cúchullain t/c 16:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
      • SmokeyJoe's characterisation above is simply incorrect. "Feliform" refers to cats and their closest relatives (like false sabertooths). Anything with saberteeth outside this grouping (marsupials, stem-mammals, creodonts) is hardly ever referred to as a "sabertoothed cat". This page does not reflect the actual usage of the term "sabertoothed cat", and it is simply misleading the readers. The sooner we fix it, the better. Otherwise readers may actually start believing the term has always covered all these groups (as some editors are already doing, it seems). FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Civet cat comes immediately to mind. "Cat" is an imprecise term in common usage. In my opinion, this rename is motivated by what is technically correct, and is an example of hypercorrection. I don't agree that anything needs doing, but if something must be done, I am more in line with SMcCandlish. Split the coverage into technically correct separate pages for distinct sabre toothed cats, and convert this page to a WP:DABCONCEPT page. I think this would be good for readers, many readers interested in sabre toothed cats will arrive with mistaken assumptions about the topic. But they will come looking for "sabre toothed cat", not the proposed new title that fails COMMONNAME. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
          • It's not really a comparable case to "civet cat". From what I've seen, sources only infrequently use the phrase "saber-toothed cat" when they're including the non-feline sabertooths. And often when they do, "cat" is put in quote marks. This is especially the case in more recent works. Even a Google Books search for "sabertooth cat" marsupial finds few recent uses of the phrase referring to the marsupial sabertooth Thylacosmilus, let alone others.--Cúchullain t/c 01:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
            • The civet cat thing, although nothing to do with sabre-tooths, shows the term "cat" to be very broad. Even technically, "cat" is not well defined. Is the sabre toothed tiger a cat? Most references to sabre tooth cats, I feel sure, have in mind the smilodon. Most uses of "cat" refer to felis (if not felis catus), which does not include the smilodon, and more expansive definitions of "cat" are very commonplace and not well defined technically. Terms including "big cats", "true cats" and even the oxymoronic "false cats" are out there.
Also poorly established is that "sabre-toothed" is even defining. Tooth size is subject to non-evolutionary adaptation; different individuals within the species may vary tooth size across time and space depending on the size of preferred prey. Fossil records are not complete, and are biased towards fossils with interesting features, such as sabre teeth. The topic is very popular with the general audience. So, I read this as a very loose topic, their being too much risk of hypercorrection in fixing things. I am unconvinced by your "rarely" in "saber toothed cat and variants appear to be *rarely* used for saber-toothed animals that aren't cats", take away smilodon and I don't think it is true. Do you oppose converting the page to a WP:DABCONCEPT page covering the popular concept of the term? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Even if we assume your civet-comparison to be correct, you have still not demonstrated that the term "cat" is ever used to non-feliform sabertooths, which is what this discussion is about. All you have shown is that some other mammals can have the word "cat" in their common names, which is pretty much a red herring. That is irrelevant to this discussion; you need to show that any of the relevant groups are ever referred to as cats. Your point about "hypercorrection" also misses the mark; the term "sabertoothed cat" isn't even used for these other animals in "common" language, which would be the very minimum criterion for usage here. FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, my opinion is that this article is already a WP:DABCONCEPT for animals that evolved the "sabertooth" adaptation. This is clearly a viable subject for an article, as there are many sources that cover it (including this whole book). The issue is that the sources covering it don't use the term "saber-toothed cats" for all the animals with that adaptations. Older works do sometimes do this, but recent ones typically don't. It appears the most common way of referring to them all "sabertooth". Here are the relevant hits from reliable presses the first 2 pages of Google Books results:
I excluded the grade school books, but most appear to follow this pattern as well. I note that one of them, "The Sabertooth Cat", does refer to marsupial "sabertooth cats". It's also from 1989. It's the only one I saw that clearly used the term "sabertooth cat" for an animal outside the felids. Overall, a pattern seems clear: sources typically do not use the term "cat" when including non-feline sabertooths.--Cúchullain t/c 15:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand, and that is all in good keeping with my initial understanding. There is an awkwardness with the use of the term "cat". The awkwardness has manifested with use of the scare quoted ""cat"", and "cat-like", "true cats" false cats" etc. I was also tempted by sabretoothed, but it is too ambiguous. Changing "cat" to predator, parenthetical or not, just changes to a different awkwardness. The sabretoothed fish is a predator. If correctness is everything, we could use sabre toothed cats and other cat-like sabretoothed animals. I note explicit reference to convergent evolution. No, I am still more comfortable with accepting that "cat" has no authoritative definition, that there is an accepted morphology-based definition (albeit often coined "cat-like"), and prefer the current title over offered alternatives. I also agree with an above thread that the word "misnomer" is too strong, and maintain that this proposal is a case of an attempt at hypercorrection. The civet is a cat, just look and observe it. In cases of convergent evolution, morphology is important on par with genetics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
If there's "hypercorrection", it's on the part of the sources. The fact is, sources by and large don't use the phrase "saber toothed cat" the way it's being used at this article. We're at variance from the things we ought to be relying on.--Cúchullain t/c 23:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
On almost every point, I feel word-for-word agreement with you. The hypercorrection tendency is in the literature and it is even there for good reason. "Cat" was an imprecise choice at the beginning. The sabre toothed marsupial cats make even Carnivora inaccurate. I can't support either Saber-toothed predator or Sabertooth, but not because the status quo is perfect. Perhaps Sabre-toothed megafauna? I do think we need to get away from phylogeny. Big protruding upper canines are seen across widely separated branches.
Here is another reference a marsupial as a "cat", to point out that FunkMonk 04:16, 16 October 2015 is in error. Writers frequently refer to non-cats as cats, based on morphology. Frequently, even if most of the time they don't.
FunkMonk's contradictions are annoying. Cúchullain I agree with, except that I think COMMONNAME & TITLECHANGES support for the status quo outweighs inconveniences with the suggested replacements. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think "megafauna" may be a bit esoteric here in the same way the technical terms are. Additionally, using a phrase like that gives the impression that it's got some currency, which it doesn't in this case ("saber-toothed cat" and "saber-toothed predator" are both some level of use). I still think our best bet is "Sabertooth" or "Sabertooth (something)". Perhaps "Sabertooth (quadruped)" if simpler things like "mammal" or "predator" aren't favored.--Cúchullain t/c 14:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I think "megafauna" is not inappropriately esoteric. It is a bit esoteric, but no more than the subject itself, prehistoric, extinct, from the fossil records. The word "megafauna" features well in the study of the prehistoric, extinct, fossil records, and is used for the very large prey and their predictors, predators which this subject is a prime example, of a type, not a species. The word "quadruped" is similarly esoteric, without the benefit of already being used in the field. "Mammal" doesn't work because so many were marsupials; marsupials used to be far more common. "Predator" doesn't work because the fish is a predator. "Animal" could work, but feels to imply a singular species, where megafauna implies diversity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, "quadruped" is certainly used in works I looked at, but I could go for Sabertooth (megafauna). Though again, I don't like the construction "saber-toothed megafauna" as it implies that the phrase is in use when it's not.--Cúchullain t/c 00:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You mean, you prefer "Sabertooth (quadruped)" over "Sabertooth quadruped", and Sabre-tooth (megafauna) over "Sabre-toothed megafauna"? Mainly to avoid using a Wikipedia-invented phrase? I can go with that. Similarly, I am go with either "saber" or "sabre", "tooth" or "toothed", hyphenated or compound.
I prefer
over
for little reasons already stated. But both are better than the current, and better than
I oppose:
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I could go for that.--Cúchullain t/c 16:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose and refocus. This article, flaws and all (e.g. sourcing), is predominantly concerned with saber-tooth felids. The inclusion of Thylacosmilus and especially Gorgonops appear less relevant, and should be given comparatively little weight. The various cladograms and tables border on WP:SYN or indiscriminate data (what are we supposed to take away from the fact that Eofelis has two species while Dinailurictis has one?). As felids are commonly referred to as "cats", and any non-cats with long teeth should only be briefly mentioned or discussed for the sake of comparison, the title accurately reflects the bulk of the text. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    • That would mean creating another article for sabertooths of all lines of evolution on top of one that focuses only on those that are felids (or feliforms, or whatever). Seems like it would create a lot of redundancy, but maybe that's the only way to eliminate the confusion that this article currently causes.--Cúchullain t/c 18:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose refocusing on felid-only. There were a lot of sabre toothed marsupials, and for a longer time, they were dominant megafauna predators until the relatively recent displacement of marsupials by mammal. Mammals that featured convergent evolved sabretooth predators. Like I mentioned earlier, adaptation with a species of tooth enlargement is easy and fast, the big upper sabre teeth of predators are a simple and direct adaptation to large prey. It means that forcing the morphology into a phylogenic definition is a hypercorrection, is incorrect. The felids represent an early bias in fossil discoveries. Subpages should be focused. This page should defocus onto all prehistoric megafauna predators with big sabre-like teeth. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment. What is desperately needed (both for quality/verifiability purposes and discussions of title & scope) are quality sources that unambiguously and thoroughly discuss sabertooth morphologies across groups, rather than the current isolated studies and database entries, if for no other reason than to ensure this doesn't become a dumping ground for miscellaneous predator with large teeth. Such sources we should draw more heavily from include Functional analysis of sabertooth cranial morphology and Déjà vu: the evolution of feeding morphologies in the Carnivora . Rather than the odd and uncommon (albeit correct) title "Saber-toothed predator" or "Sabertooth (megafauna)", I would be more supportive of renaming this article into a process article, rather than a "thing", such as Evolution of sabertooth morphology (for comparison, we have Evolution of the eye, not Eyed animals or Animals with eyes). Otherwise, I'm leaning towards the straightforward Sabretooth as a title, pedantry be damned. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Desirable yes. Those two sources provide a number of statements that could be worked into the article. Independent evolution of elongated canines among both the Caniformia and Feliformia, and not touching the marsupials. I don't think there is enough substance to the evolution of sabreteeth in the way there is for eyes. If there were no "evolution" substance to Evolution of the eye, what would it be called? So, Sabretooth? I'd rather stick with the loosely used term "cat", but I guess this is not a strong position. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reason For Reverting

@CCevol2016:, please understand that I keep reverting your edits because your edits are:

  • Poorly written grammatically
  • Introduce incorrect information by saying Thylacosmilidae are marsupials even though they are now considered sparassodonts
  • Remove information in the form of removing mention of the deltatheroideans
  • Introduce unimportant information in the form of talking about Nimravidae's status within Feliformes, which is not important in an article about several unrelated groups, and would be more relevant in an article about the evolution of Feliformes or Nimravidae.

These are the reasons why I keep reverting you, please take the time to understand.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Sabre Tooth Taxonomy

Can the saber-tooth evolution tree be change to (or have a sub-unit) called saber-tooth taxonomy/phylogeny because thats what it showing, the taxonomy of the saber-tooth, not it's evolution. Edit: Also, tell me the difference between phylogeny and taxonomy. 208.114.41.213 (talk) 5:47, 7 December 2016 (Central Time)

  • Phylogeny is based on genetics, using genetics to to construct an evolutionary tree of descent. Taxonomy is about characteristics as observed, similar to morphology. Taxonomy groups big cat-like creatures together, even though phylogenetically they are very far separated. Phylogeny and taxonomy can differ considerably in cases of convergent evolution, and this topic must be one of the most extreme examples. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw the edit, thank you! When I saw "saber-tooth evolution tree" I knew it was wrong.208.114.41.213 (talk) 6:29, 7 December 2016 (Central Time)

I know why their teeth were so big.

It is because it allows them to hook onto a large prey's body and be carried along as it runs. You can't chase or stalk too much in cold weather or you'll burn too many calories and starve. It would also explain why they had such strong necks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-E-N-O-V-A (talk • contribs) 05:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with TP rules - no Original Research, WP:FORUM, etc.50.111.22.143 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, J-E-N-O-V-A speaks to a good point. It is well known why big canine teeth are advantageous, and yet the article doesn’t cover it. It is a reason for improving the article by adding sourced material discussing “the advantages of big canine teeth”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
If the specific idea isn't discussed in an actual source, then no, we should not mention it here. Furthermore, the areas where Smilodon lived weren't cold, so the premise is incorrect. The article already discusses in depth what actual researchers have proposed for teeth funcitons. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The article does contain this: "The elongated teeth also aided with strikes reaching major blood vessels in these large mammals. However, the precise functional advantage of the saber-toothed cat's bite, particularly in relation to prey size, is a mystery." Is a mystery. An unsourced non-statement. The next paragraph goes on to talk about gape.
Google returns heaps of stuff.
"to cut through the tough and often armored hides" https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-sabercats-use-their-fangs-180962604/ This source argues that all ideas, common as these ideas are, are all speculative.
http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2004/01/6529.html Computer modelling retro-engineering to find the answer! "To test Mendel's own hypothesis that Smilodon's fangs were used to cut the throats of prey, rather than suffocate them as modern cats do" Describing future work to test one's own hypothesis, OK maybe?
These teeth are thought to have been too weak to withstand being jabbed into struggling prey http://panoptesv.com/RPGs/animalia/mammalia/eutheria/carnivora/felidae/SaberTooth.html
https://www.amnh.org/about-the-museum/press-center/saber-toothed-cats-s-canines-took-years-to-grow says that Smilodon fatalis didn't develop its sabre teeth until three years old, which I think allows us to conclude that the sabre teeth were not required for survival in the first three years.
I think my earlier words were plain wrong. It is a bit of a mystery. I am starting to suspect that they could even be a feature for sexual selection, like a peacock's tail.
I think there is definitely potential to improve the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, we are not going to add anything to the article based on speculations of editors. What can be done, however, is to add additional peer reviewed studies (if any can be found, one relevant one was removed a while ago by someone claiming it was a "predatory journal"), not pop science articles and press releases (and RPG instructions?!) as those linked above. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm tempted...

to change every "mya" on the page to "nya".

You are all idiots. Unless you are writing for a small clique of dorks, WTF is a MYA... and what is the point of giving me information, that requires me to look up another looooooong Wiki article about what a mya is.

The effort you folks put into this is admirable, but making it usable to a normal reader (that is after all the concept behind an encyclopedia, educating the normal folk) should be your overarching goal.

Dork on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.227.25 (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's million year ago, very simpleTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request For Better inclusion of the Deltatheroida

This page is a bit of a misnomer, but that has been discussed in other topics. An issue that seems to have not been addressed in quite some time. The original version of this page did not feature this group, which makes sense as it had not been discovered at the time. However once discovered this group was awkwardly shoved into the page without much consideration of inclusion. For example, there is a set of photos which depict the different groups. In that set there is a sufficiently sized blank space for an image to be placed. That combined with a skip from the 1st instance to the third instance justifies the editing of that section.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@TheDarkMaster2: Deltatheroida was included in the gallery earlier versions of the article. The image File:Lotheridium bust.png was deleted from Wikimedia Commons copyright violation and two bots edited this page, one removed the image and a second the blank box in the gallery. So the removal of Deltatheroida from this page was not made by a human editor. To add it back we need a suitable image. I've asked the copyright holder of the original image for help, but I don't think he is a regular editor so don't expect a quick response if at all.   Jts1882 | talk  08:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
What would constitute a good image for the deltatheroida? My brother is an artst and he would be willing to do art for the article if he was requested.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Living?

In two places in the Lead paragraph, it states that the saber-tooth cats have living examples, However, I've looked through the rest of the article, but can find no reference to these living examples. Am I missing them, and if so, can it be clarified and made easier to find? Thanks. -BilCat (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Occasionally you see unconvincing arguments that clouded leopards (Neofelis) are saber-toothed because they have large teeth (not the exactly the same thing). Now you mention it, I see that clouded leopards are listed (tribe Neofelini) in the taxonomy section. I think this should be removed, not least because it is unsourced. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Split

Ok, so for various reasons, the earlier move requests ended without any consensus. But the title still doesn't match the scope, which is de-facto all saber-toothed predators that ever lived, not just saber toothed cats (which, as demonstrated earlier, is not a term which is used in the literature for many of the groups covered here). So if this is not moved to a more inclusive title, we have to create a new article which covers the concept of saber-toothed predator/ecomorph in general (whatever the title-name ends up as), and restrict this article to those animals that have specifically been referred to as saber-toothed cats (animals within feliformia). FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I was considering creating an article on Sabertooth (predator) (or simply Sabertooth, if we usurp the redirect) to discuss all the animals with this adaptation, and removing everything from here that isn't a feliform sabertooth. At that point, we may have to consider just doing away with this article because it will be redundant, but hey, it's a process.--Cúchullain t/c 15:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Also agree. Though, one last quibble, in that, once this goes through, we would move Thylacosmilus (along with Inostrancevia and others) off of this page, whereupon we would then be left with the barbourfelids, nimravids, machairodontids, etc?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Seems redundant to me, but since we can't seem to get this moved to a more appropriate title, I'm not sure what else to do. And by the way the (megafauna) is inappropriate, since many sabertoothed predators were quite small (Machaeroides, Lycaenops, etc.). (Quadruped) is just too generic to be meaningful. Tiarajudens and Titanoides were quadrupedal and had "saberteeth", but as herbivores, they are not covered by the term. What the relevant animals have in common is that they were predators. (Carnivore) could work, but people may confuse it for carnivora. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's not focus too much on the disambiguation, which is part of how the discussion got off track in the first place. We should focus on getting the article and its content off the ground. Once that's done we can discuss if there's a better disambiguator. It can even be started in user space and then moved later once the basics are assembled.--Cúchullain t/c 16:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is generally about feliform sabre-tooths. The biology sections and the phylogeny section only deal with the "cats". The morphology section is the one where the article seems to go off topic and perhaps this can be addressed by changing the organisation of that section. For instance, it could be started by saying the sabre-tooth morphology developed three (arguable four if we add Nimravides) times in the feliform carnivores. Describe them with a paragraph each. Then add that the sabre tooth morphology has developed independently in at least four other older mammalian groups, which can be dealt with in a single paragraph. I'd cut the others out of the taxonomy section and change the lede to emphasize the difference between false and true sabre toothed cats (with just a passing reference to others, if at all). A separate article on sabre-toothed carnivores in general is a good idea, though, as it is a morphology that evolved, grew big and then died out many times within a relatively narrow time period. Jts1882 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
What you describe will be the consequence of the proposed split anyhow; the "new" article will be about the ecomorphological niche as a whole. The question is, why even have an article only focused on sabertoothed cats specifically? The only reason seems to be so we can preserve an article with such a title, but it will generally just be a WP:Content fork. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Because the sabre-toothed cats and false sabre-tooths are some of the most notable extinct animals. In the public imagination they are up there with mammoths as the best known extinct mammals. It would be strange not to have an article on them. A more general article on the ecomorphs is obviously also of interest. Having it separate would allow the ecological and adaptive aspects to be explored more neutrally, without an over-emphasis on the better known cats. I think this separation could benefit both articles. An alternative might be a more general article on carnivore strategies, including a discussion of cat-like, dog-like and hyaena-like ecomophs (e.g. along the lines of the discussion in Van Valkenburgh (2007). Then the sabre-toothed and bone-crushing ecomorphs could be picked out as extreme examples with multiple occurences. This is a much bigger undertaking, though. Jts1882 (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
There are already articles about them: Machairodontinae, Nimravidae, and Barbourofelidae. But that is not the issue, no one is talking about removing those articles. The issue is why we need to have a separate article dealing with just these three groups, simply so we can have the word "cat" in the title. But that outcome is better than what we have now, in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
This is so simple, change the name to Saber-tooth Cat(ecomorphic phenomenon)TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't solve anything, as the problem is that thew words "cat" itself is too restrictive to what this article covers. This article could be renamed saber toothed predator, then saber toothed cat could be a disambig page for the feliforms. 12:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)FunkMonk (talk)

"Incorrect"

Pinging Apokryltaros, after reverting my edit. I want to explain my reasons, since I think as it stands this sentence isn't great. In general, I find it unhelpful to try to force technical-ness in common names for taxa. It comes across as unnecessarily pedantic to say that "saber tooth tiger" is incorrect, especially given that is an extremely common usage. In particular, simply saying that it's incorrect without saying why is too terse. My edit solves both of these issues. It's precise about why "saber tooth tiger" isn't a great term without pontificating on whether it's right or wrong to use. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 17:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but, the very next sentences go on to explain how and why in detail it's incorrect to refer to species of Smilodon and other sabertooth "cats" #sic as "tigers." It would be redundant to specifically state that Smilodon and tigers are unrelated, and then state again that (most) sabertooths and modern felids are unrelated/not closely related.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
But Smilodon is in fact a cat (broadly defined as a felid), which is not mentioned. It is not redundant since the rest of the paragraph isn't referring to Smilodon. On a second reading, I would say the whole paragraph (maybe even the whole lead) ought to be rewritten to be clearer and smoother. The natural reading would imply that Smilodon isn't a cat. Furthermore, there is no mention of Machairodontinae, which seems like it would be the natural clade to mention first when discussing the "cat" part of "sabre-tooth cat", and then to mention that lots of non-felid animals are also called "sabre-tooth cats". Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that it needs to be rewritten, yes, especially since there are felids, i.e., Smilodon and Maicharodus, among the sabertooth cats in addition to non-felids like Eusmilus and Machaeroides.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saber-toothed_predator/Archive_2&oldid=1056133293"