Talk:Miracinonyx

DNA reveals closest relative

According to The Independent, we now have DNA evidence that the Miracinonyx's closest living relative is in fact the Puma, and that their MRCA lived about thee million years ago, both descended from a "puma-like cat" that entered North America around six million years ago. See http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article304652.ece — B.Bryant 11:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

A better information about the same subject (I think is the original source, since the Independent Article now is payed), It's at:

http://abc.zoo.ox.ac.uk/Papers/currbiol05_cats.pdf

Camahuetos 01:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

M. studeri

Perhaps M. studeri is also a valid species (See: Cheetah#Genetics and classification)--Altaileopard (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Need clarification from User:UtherSRG

Howdy User:UtherSRG. I need a clarification from you on a point of style. I added quotes around "American cheetahs" in the first sentence. You removed the quotes. My reasoning: "The American cheetahs (genus Miracinonyx) were at least two species of felines similar the the Cheetah." I.e., they weren't Acinonyx, i.e., they weren't really cheetahs, i.e., the quotes are appropriate. Why did you remove the quotes? Wikifully, 201.50.251.197 02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

They are called "American cheetahs" in many scientific writings [1] although they are also called "cheetah-like cats". But it looks soundly like the common name for species in this genus is "American cheetahs". As such, it doesn't need quotes in the article (although my quotes here are appropriate since we're discussing the term and not the cats themselves). - UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Taxonomy section Simply reverting back refreshes the damage. Stylistically, the parentheses are not ideal, but without some sort of explanation, the section reads like a mess. Someone who doesn't know that a cougar is a puma, but knows they are cats is going to be confused. The italics on puma are insufficient to differentiate the common name from the genus since puma is also a common name. Heck, I knew there wasn't any difference. I knew the genus and it still took me time to figure out what the paragraph was saying. Encyclopedia articles are to inform the uninformed. If you wish to lord over the article, fine. But fix the confusion or I will come back and fix it myself. --24.6.207.223 (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The initial paragraph has the explanation, plus the link to the Puma genus article. That is sufficient. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerns About The Picture

If there is something wrong about the picture, can someone point out to me what needs to/should be corrected? But if it's simply a matter of taste, can someone point out where in Wikipedia it says it's ok to (re)start edit wars over one's personal tastes or distastes?--Mr Fink (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why I asked the question I did in my edit summary. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain the picture used on this page is photoshopped. The head is distinctly that of a cougar's and the body has been clearly cropped from an image of a cheetah running. Whoever thinks this picture is appropriate is an idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.3.139.40 (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If you'll look, you'll see the subject of this article (both species, in fact) are extinct. The image is not supposed to be a picture *of* an American cheetah. It is an artist's impression of what an American cheetah might have looked like. The picture is not photoshopped, per se, as it doesn't come from a photograph. (And no, the art isn't mine.) Please refrain from using snide comments. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggested name change

Hello, given the state of current taxonomic knowledge about this genus it seems that reference to it as a "cheetah" is inappropriate. Most likely a name like "plains puma" or "running puma" would be more appropriate as a common name. Until the taxonomic situation is clarified, and an appropriate common name becomes widespread, I suggest renaming this article "Miracinonyx" and turning "American_cheetah" into a redirect page. --Hrimpurstala (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

date?

The intro text claims it's Pliocene, but then lists dates in the Pleistocene. Which is it? Mokele (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

new information

Giant Cheethsa are related to modern cheethas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.14.221.107 (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

There's been some recent coverage of this species' possible interactions with pronghorns and its influence on the latter's evolution: this article covers it well. If anyone wants to digest it & incorporate it into the article, go ahead: otherwise I'll dive in when I have a little time to devote to it ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Move

As per WP:CONSISTENCY and general policy/consensus regarding prehistoric genera, I propose to move this page to Miracinonyx.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 2018

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move American cheetah or American lion, Consensus to move all other paged listed in this RM. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 09:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

---

• American cheetah → Miracinonyx
• American lion → Panthera atrox
• European jaguar → Panthera gombaszoegensis
• Giant cheetah → Acinonyx pardinensis
• Trinil tiger → Panthera tigris trinilensis
• Wanhsien tiger → Panthera tigris acutidens
• Ngandong tiger → Panthera tigris soloensis
• Sri Lanka lion → Panthera leo sinhaleyus
• European Ice Age leopard → Panthera pardus spelaea

– See above SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). –Ammarpad (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree to all the moves, would indeed be consistent with other prehistoric cat page titles. Though it may be necessary to check whether Trinil, Wanhsien and Ngandong tigers are still considered tiger subspecies. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC), edited -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Update- I left notices concerning this request on the talk pages of WikiProjects Cats and Paleontology. Also, I noted that two of the tigers had previously been moved from the trinomial to the vernacular, with apparently no discussion, and that another four note the reason for the redirect as being from a scientific name to a vernacular name per WP:COMMONNAME. However, WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to prehistoric taxa (as per policy and general consensus), for various reasons, including that vernacular names concocted for prehistoric taxa are almost never used in relevant publications, and may end up being misnomers.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above name changes except American cheetah and American lion, these names are much more commonly used than common names for the rest of the taxa, other extinct ice age taxa are referred to also have common names for article titles like Woolly Mammoth, Columbian Mammoth, Dire Wolf, Short-faced bear etc, so not without precedent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen "American cheetah" used in place of "Miracinonyx" in scientific publications. As for P. atrox., all of the other prehistoric pantherines articles have the binomial as the title (Panthera crassidens, Panthera blytheae, and others).--SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the American Lion is far more familiar the the general public than some obscure taxa from the Miocene, and thus has a valid common name, unlike the other taxa on this list which should be referred to by the species name. This paper refers to the American Lion in the title of the paper Also your quote about the term 'American cheetah' not being used in the literature is mistaken as this article and article, among others, use the term. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• None of these should be moved. The most familiar name in English is the test in something like this, and each move suggests taking the common and familiar name and taking it to something probably 1% of English readers will immediately recognize. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Moving these pages to Latin name titles still allows redirects with familiar names to these pages. So the argument 'familiarity' against the proposed moves : does not hold. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment The Cave lion, Panthera spelaea, is currently located at its scientific name despite being called the cave lion as a vernacular (and it is more well-known than most of the above). As for Miracinonyx, the American cheetah name is a misnomer, as only one of the two species actually looked similar to a cheetah.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• @SilverTiger12, BhagyaMani, Randy Kryn, and Hemiauchenia: Extinct big cat moves are now being discussed here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• agree: It's standard Wikipedia procedure to title prehistoric animal articles after their scientific names, if only because very few of them have an official English common name, and that scientific names are given precedence in academic and scientific papers, of which Wikipedia gives bias towards.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support with two exceptions, for the same reason the original speedy request contested them: American cheetah and American lion are actually the most common names in those two cases, and we should thus have them at the these vernaculars, just as we do for wooly mammoth and cave wolf. For all the rest, yes, it's standard practice to use the bi- or trinomial for extinct species that do not have actually-common vernacular names. It doesn't matter at all whether paleontological specialist sources uniformly use the scientific taxonomy; that's not how WP:COMMONNAME works. There is no principle that "per policy and general consensus" that COMMONAME somehow doesn't apply to prehistoric taxa. If you think there is, cite that policy and that RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with SMcCandlish and Hemiauchenia that American cheetah and American lion should remain under their current names, per WP:COMMONNAME. Panthera spelaea should probably be moved to cave lion, but that is a discussion for another day. Rlendog (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support all (or perhaps not American lion). Per article title criteria.

CONSISTENCY: scientific names are a consistent system; there is no consistent source for vernacular names for most taxa, especially paleontological ones.

CONCISENESS: in this particular discussion the vernacular names are mostly several characters shorter than scientific names, word count is similar for vernacular and scientific name; in general, scientific names require fewer words and are comparable in character count to vernacular names.

PRECISION: scientific names refer precisely to the subjects of Wikipedia's articles about particular organisms; vernacular names may refer to multiple organisms (although not relevant to these cases), and one organisms may have multiple vernacular names (relevant to these cases).

NATURALNESS: vernacular names of the few paleontological organisms that have them are not particularly linked by editors; readers that are at all serious about seeking information on paleontological organisms on the internet will quickly learn that scientific names are better search terms.

RECOGNIZABILITY: yeah, on the surface this favors vernacular names over scientific names; but specifically it says "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize". I'm not convinced that anybody familiar with various extinct cats will be completely incapable of recognizing that they have scientific names that are commonly used in reliable sources.

WP:COMMONNAME has been cited. COMMONNAME existed for several years as a free-standing guideline (not policy). It was merged/grafted into the policy Wikipedia:Article titles, where I would argue that it is essentially a restatement of RECOGNIZABILITY (Is it not? I'd like to hear any explanation against this). COMMONNAME does not explicitly prefer vernacular names for organisms over scientific name. It prefers "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". For all the Wikipedia articles listed in this move request, reliable sources invariably include scientific but not necessarily any vernacular name.

American lion may be a good title if there is indeed weight against scientific names. American Lion is a name that is pretty commonly used in reliable sources. I'm not convinced that is the case for American cheetah. "False cheetah" and "American cheetah like-cat" are also used to refer to this genus (where only one species is particularly cheetah like). A WP:GOOGLETEST is pretty useless, but it does tend to favor long-standing Wikipedia usage and vernacular names, and doesn't account for other vernacular names applied to the same organism. If a vernacular name can't pass even a GOOGLETEST, it's got problems (american cheetah 23,300, Miracinonyx 29,700. Plantdrew (talk)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

See also "[giant bbc"?

@Leo1pard's most recent edit has a lot of good changes but one very much confuses me: under "See also," the only text is "[giant bbc." I'm sure this is unintentional, but I cannot guess what it was supposed to say. DancingGrumpyCat^talk | (ze/zir or she/her) 04:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Source bank

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360719486_MIRACINONYX_TRUMANI_CARNIVORA_FELIDAE_FROM_THE_RANCHOLABREAN_OF_THE_GRAND_CANYON_ARIZONA_AND_ITS_IMPLICATIONS_FOR_THE_ECOLOGY_OF_THE_AMERICAN_CHEETAH (Miracinonyx trumani (Carnivora; Felidae) from the Rancholabrean of the Grand Canyon, Arizona and its implications for the ecology of the “American Cheetah”)

SuperTah (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerium (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

---

American cheetah → Miracinonyx – With very few exceptions, Wikipedia for fossil taxons should use the taxonomic name rather than an informal one, and there's not much evidence for a preference for "American cheetah" over "Miracinonyx" in the paleontological record since it can definitely be misleading. Also recent research suggests that Miracinonyx isn't really a convergent example with Acinonyx like previously thought, especially since M. trumani retains retractable claws that cripple its ability to run further but allow it to grapple prey like its closest relative Puma concolor and unlike A. jubatus. It is proposed that M. trumani had a unique predatory behavior overall that has no living analogues. [2] [3] PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. For various reasons, ranging from accuracy, consistency, and the fact that "American cheetah" isn't a common term for this genus in scientific literature. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME; the genus has more ghits than the current title. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, scientific name is more commonly used than vernacular name (as is true for most prehistoric mammals, which are generally consistently titled with scientific names). Plantdrew (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2023 (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.

"Crippled" its ability to run fast

just proposing a less drastic turn of phrase. speed is relative and any predator which could catch a pronghorn is obviously very fast. perhaps retractable claws means it is not cheetah-fast so how about "'reduced' its ability to run fast" 69.251.47.164 (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

M. trumani more cougar like

The main article states that M. trumani was the more cougar like of the two species. I suspect that this is incorrect. Every other source I have found states that M. trumani was the later, more derived and more cheetah like of the two species; I seem to remember the Wikipedia article stating this as well at one point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.108.84‎ (talk • contribs)