Talk:Saber-toothed predator/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Something to add later

From http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:TQjhL-e2Y2IJ:www.natur.cuni.cz/~vpetr/Broom.htm+Thylacosmilid&hl=en&client=firefox-a

One of the most popular heterogeneous group comprising repeatedly evolved identical bauplan are sabre-toothed carnivores possessing blade-like, very long and slender upper canine teeth. Very similar sabretooths appeared at various times and various places during the approximately 50-million-year history. They occurred repeatedly and independently in at least four distinct mammalian groups: in completely extinct nimravids, hyaenodontid creodonts, thylacosmilid marsupials, as well as in modern felids. In every time they coexisted succeessfully with their short-canined relatives, and it seems to be a matter of chance that we have no sabretooth with us today (Radinsky and Emerson 1982).

The bolded information should be integrated into the article when possible. Maybe change article name to "saber-tooth" ?

ClockworkTroll 06:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Saber-tooth" is good. The alternative is saber-toothed cat-like mammals or the equivalent, which is clumsy and a poor natural link. "Saber-toothed cat" should actually be a redirect to Machairodontinae, not a separate page describing the saber-toothed phenomenon, since that's probably what is intended when someone makes that link (I know I did).

I also added an abbreviated cladogram; I think it makes it clearer how distantly related some of the saber-toothed mammals are from each other, both by showing and referring not just to when they existed, but when they diverged from their most recent common ancestor. Very incomplete at the moment.

-Pat 05:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Display

The wording If this is the case, it would support the theory that sabertooths were social animals, is misleading. Talk to a moose which has extraordinary display structure but are not social in the sense used here. If I can develop better wording I'll change it. 208.114.132.151 17:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

no link to sabre?

Stange that in all the article no mention of what a sabre actually is. GraemeLeggett 16:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

True cats?

This article does not clearly state if Saber-tooth cats are true cats nor does it state that Saber-tooth cat is a board term conposing many orders. Someone mind fixing this? 71.135.35.5 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is completely nonsense in my eyes. Saber-toothed cats (Machairodontinae) are true cats (they belong to the family Felidae) but the false saber toothed cats, like Hoplophoneus , which are erroneously called saber-tooths in this article, belong to the family Nimravidae.--Altaileopard 22:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

barbourofelidae

Barbourofelidae are no longer considered a sub-family of nimravidae and should be classified as a family of their own in the phylogeny section Laurence Browning 18:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

do you have sources for that? but we should probably discuss that at Talk:Nimravidae.--Altaileopard 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hyaenodont sabertooth?

What were some genera of "sabertoothed" hyaenodonts? I do know of Machaeroides and Machaeroidinae, but those are in dispute over which family they should be placed in.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

2004

There's still a few things I want to do with this page.

Most importantly, some of the genera in the table may be ancestral to one another - if that's the case then sabertoothed characteristics did NOT evolve independently in the younger genus. I would like to make that very clear. A pretty family tree would be nice, I think.

After that, I think I'll add entries on each of the genera in the table. That's the least I could do. ClockworkTroll 05:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

80.218.57.163 (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC) I think we need in this page a description about how

Nimravids are no Saber toothed cats

The Nimravidae are usually called false saber-toothed cats (not sabre toothed cats) and the sparassodonta should also not be called saber-tooths. That are the main reasons, why I would like to see this article deleted.--Altaileopard 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly a discussion of the saber-toothed phenomenon (not the cats per se), which is of both popular and scientific interest[1], and thus encyclopedic. Deletion is entirely inappropriate. The article is simply misnamed. "Cat" should be removed from the title, and the current title should redirect to Machairodontinae. —Pat 11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, i agree. Probably it would be better to move this article to saber-toothed predator, however [www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2451.2006.00572.x some publications] call species, which do not belong to the felidae saber-toothed cats. hmmmm.--Altaileopard (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

To who ever created this page thanks alot, it is very well layed out and very helpful when comparing all the speciecs of sabertooths. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomic system in the list

I rearranged the list based on higher taxons to make it more clear, but I don´t like the layout of the new topics very much. Any ideas, to make it nicer?--Altaileopard (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh keep it the way it was before you made the changes, it was fine the way it was. I am reverting your edit but keeping your deletion oh Therailurus and Dinobastis. If you wish to revert my edit then address me on this talk page please. Thanks TeePee-20.7 (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was also not completely happy with my edit, that´s why I wrote here at the talk page. If you like it better as it was, I wil keep away from this article. But I don´t understand why everybody is cheering up this article so much. It consists only of two lists and the upper of them is actually very bad. All genera are pasted unsorted in a long list and you can not see which family they belong to. Some invalid generea are still in the list and not all of them are saber-toothed predators. Dinaelurus for example was a conical-toothed nimravid [2]. Cheers, --Altaileopard (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Portrayal in fiction

Would it not be a good idea to add a section on the saber-toothed cat's portrayal in fiction? It appears quite often, and a debunking section would be nice. I for one would like to know if any of the species were as large as the ones often portrayed to be nearly the size of elephants. 72.195.189.98 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an awesome idea! Every article I know has such a section. Angie Y. (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this question is over a year old, but just in case: none approached elephant size. Smilodon populator was the largest, 120cm at the shoulder and 300+ kg, maybe up to 400kg, in big individuals.Vultur (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Saber or sabre?

The title of the page is saber-toothed cat, but it is spelled sabre in the first paragraph.

Can one of these be fixed?

Jabberwockgee (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

DNA

In the Genes Sabertooth a Relative of Modern-Day Big Cats, DNA Tests Show http://articles.latimes.com/1992-10-29/news/we-956_1_big-cat

Molecular phylogenetic inference from saber-toothed cat fossils www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC50214/ 24.228.23.185 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Obvious questions

Did their long teeth help their survival or did the long teeth result in extinction? What caused the elongated teeth: inbreeding; genetic characteristic amplification?Lestrade (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Good point (no pun intended). It seems to me that for the canines to be of any use when actually biting an object that was too large to bypass them, the mouth would have to open ridiculously far. I think it possible the canines may have been of survival value for attacking or defensive strikes that took place while the mouth was closed. Brigman (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The fossil record strongly suggests that saber-toothed cats' saber teeth either helped them persist for tens of millions of years, or did not hinder them. Also, there are many hypotheses suggesting that the saber teeth were used to shear or tear out chunks of flesh, or to tear out the throat/trachea of prey. Injuries, especially of fangs being caught in bone, also suggest that the saber teeth were used in fighting, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Saber toothed marsupials

When are these ever referred to as saber-toothed cats? If they aren't, they don't belong in this article, apart from maybe a "see also". FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Even a lot of scientific publications call all saber toothed mammalian predators "saber-toothed cats", even if they don´t belong to the family Felidae. (Saber-toothed cats; Fossils explained). It is a bit confusing, but the term felid is usually used for the Felidae, whereas cat is often used for cat-like animals e.g. Nimravidae --Altaileopard (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sabre-toothed cat or Sabre-toothed tiger ?

Is there a difference between the names Sabre-toothed cat & Sabre-toothed tiger ? By that I mean are the two names used for the same species or for different species ? Is one the correct name, because I've heard that their correct name is Sabre-toothed cat. And also I've argued with people that believe that the Saber-toothed cat/ tiger couldn't exist because they couldn't open their mouth wide enough to hunt (by that I mean do what some big cats do today by crushing the throat with their jaws) or even eat. So how did they hunt & eat ? 80.254.146.140 (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

See my comments below regarding the name, also check out the University of California website that I added a link to.

Indicate that these are also called "Saber-toothed tigers"

Edited page to make it clear that this is the same group of animals that are commonly called "saber-toothed tigers" (at least when I was growing up in California in the '90s), and why calling them "tigers" is no longer a best practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.46.68 (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations/references needed throughout

Quality sources and inline citations are desperately needed throughout. Additionally, a "See Also" section should be added near the bottom to redirect interested (or confused) readers to other saber-toothed beasts, such as Thylacosmilus and kin. Animalparty (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What's with the "subfamilies" stuff?

In the introduction it reads "These animals consist of the subfamilies" and then it lists a subfamily and a couple family taxons. Seems a bit confusing. 84.198.53.190 (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The introduction could be cleaned up & clarified.Animalparty (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

For now, I replaced "subfamilies" with "taxa," as not all of the groups mentioned are subfamilies.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hard to tell apart

"These carnivores are very closely related to actual cats, and as such, they are hard to tell apart." Actually, I think I would have very little difficulty distinguishing a sabre-tooth tiger from an actual cat. The clue would be in the teeth. What, if anything, is this sentence supposed to mean? Coffee and walnut (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Are we talking about the nimravids, barbourofelids, or the machairodont felids? The first two are distinct families from Felidae, after all.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The sentence quoted is referring to barbourofelids. But I still think it would be easy to distinguish one from an "actual cat". Perhaps the sentence is intended to convey that barbourofelids are hard to distinguish from machairodonts? Coffee and walnut (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Machairodont

So what is a "machairodont"? The first mention in the article is "Because of their primitiveness, they are extremely easy to tell from machairodonts." Since we have not yet been told what a macharidont is, this is not particularly useful. Coffee and walnut (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is apparently using the machairodonts (i.e., the branch of Felidae that became saber-toothed true cats) as a template with which to compare all other saber-toothed mammal groups. It would be better to give a brief description of each group, and try to avoid comparisons in these descriptions as much as possible.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If that's what a machairodont is, fine. But the article needs to say so. Coffee and walnut (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Pointers

There is something odd about the pointers into this article. Trying to get back to it after a break, I typed saber tooth tiger into the search box and got to Smilodon. Should I not have got to this article instead? Coffee and walnut (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Smilodon

Are we expected to know ahead of time that Smilodon is a genus of sabre-tooth tiger? The first mention in the article is "Evidence from the numbers found at La Brea Tar Pits suggests that Smilodon, like modern lions, was a social carnivore" and so I have to guess that Smilodon is an example of what the article is about (the wording suggests by the position of the comma, that Smilodon was an ancient lion). Is is supposed to be a typical genuss, so that we can plausibly assume that other genera were social? Or is it exceptional in being social? Or do we simply not know? Given that Smilodon article describes it as "best-known" it needs a better introduction into the text. Coffee and walnut (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand, Smilodon is often portrayed to be the "archetypical sabertooth," though, I personally think that that sentence should be changed because, from what little we know, the social behaviors of sabertooths most likely varied drastically.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

References

The DOI in the van Valkenburgh reference is wrong. The one in the footnotes is correct. For some reason I am unable to edit the article to correct it. Coffee and walnut (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Evolutionary ratchet

The phrasing "these creatures would be unable to adapt to smaller prey or consume other sources of food, and would be unable to reduce their size so as to need less food" seems unfortunate. Of course the creatures were unable to reduce their size: no mammal can do that, except by biting off one of its appendages. What the source states it that it is rare for large predators to adapt to declining prey numbers by evolving into smaller or less specialised forms and that in most cases they go extinct instead. Coffee and walnut (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we borrow your phrase to replace the current sentence?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course! It is probably worth mentioning Cope's rule and Dollo's law at this point in the article too. Coffee and walnut (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Saber-tooth genera

The family tree in this section mentions Proailurus, Pseudaelurus, and Subfamily Felinae, without making it in any way clear that these are not sabre-toothed. Should they be there at all, and if they are, they should be distinguished somehow. On the other hand, families Barbourofelidae and Nimravidae are missing. What does this tree mean? Coffee and walnut (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with scope in this article. Not all of the saber-tooths are referred to as cats (goprgonopsians, marsupials, etc.), so the title is misleading, and may need to be changed. Saber toothed cats specifically refers to machairodonts. Pinging LittleJerry, to make him aware of the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2015

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: Not Moved - no evidence that the requested target meet Commonname policy. Smokey Joe's suggestion to convert concept DAB is a good one. No evidence that Sabre is more common than Saber. Mike Cline (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Saber-toothed cat → Saber-tooth ecomorph or saber-toothed predator, saber-toothed carnivore, saber-tooth morphology – The term saber-toothed cat refers specifically to members of the felid (cat) clade machairodontinae, and the term should either redirect there or become the name of that article. This article here is currently about the broader saber-tooth predator ecomorph which has evolved independently in various groups, and not specifically cats. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:Common name Articles need to be written in English. If you talk to English people about "Sabre-toothed cats" some of them will know what you are talking about (and will point out that the correct spelling is "sabre" not "saber"). Very few people will have much idea what an ecomorph might be.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

First, ecomorphology is a scientific term derived from Greek, like Morphology (biology), Psychology, the list goes on, it is irrelevant whether it is "purely English" or not, when it is used by English sources, and there are no equivalent English terms. See for example Anolis ecomorphs for a precedent. Second, I gave alternate names with only English words if you like those better, please try to even read the request before commenting. Third, you don't address the problem, which is that this article is about a much wider concept than saber-toothed cats, and therefore does not reflect the literature (sources) on the subject. The term Saber-toothed cat will be retained, just as the title or redirect for a more specific article, Machairodontinae. Fourth, saber is the American spelling, sabre is the UK spelling, and it is used in the current title of this article if you hadn't noticed, so please don't try to be needlessly patronising. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Searches on Google are revealing:

• "Sabre tooth ecomorph" 1 hit to a dissertation at an Australian university
• "Saber tooth ecomorph" 2 hits - both are which are to Wikipedia listings of this move discussion.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your searches mainly "reveal" that you have yet again ignored the alternate names I proposed. Anyhow, you should not use quotes when searching for the term, "saber tooth" is frequently described as an ecomorph, but not necessary as the sabertooth ecomorph, so your search is faulty. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes you must use quotations in a search. Using quotations in the search means that Google does an AND search. Not using quotations means that it does an OR search. The reason I ignored the alternative names you suggested was that I was looking at your proposal. If the subject is not known as the "sabertooth ecomorph", that means that your proposal is forbidden under Wikipedia:No original research.

By the way "alternate" and "alternative" have different meanings.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, and they can also mean the same, as in the way I used the word. Quit the patronising tone, it's tiresome and counter-productive. As for ecomorph, it is akin to complaining that "morphology (biology)" or similar does not turn up results in a search. "morphology (biology)" is not a frequently used term either, yet makes perfect sense as an article title. Put "ecomorph" in parenthesis for all I care, it's besides the point, which is that the scope of this article is different from the current title. And that's what needs to be discussed. It is for disambiguation purposes, to differentiate from saber-tooth. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This paper, which is already cited in the article uses the terms "sabertooth short-faced predator" and, yes, "sabertooth ecomorphs" for a collection of animals that includes Creodonts (i.e., the marsupial-like animals mentioned in this Wikipedia article that really make the term "cat" problematic). There seems to be a lot more research on sabertooth felids, or felids and nimravids collectively(e.g. this paper cited in the article), so "sabertooth cat" is more commonly used, but it's really not a good term if creodonts are included. Plantdrew (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, gorgonopsian stem-mammals and actual marsupial thylacosmilids are covered as well, neither of which are ever referred to as saber-toothed cats, simply as saber-toothed predators. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support requested move. Oppose equating saber-toothed cat with machairodontinae. Suggest converting the title "saber-toothed cat" (and related redirects) to a disambiguation page (after moving the current article to saber-tooth ecomorph). Plantdrew (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A large number of the incoming links to this page could be replaced with ones to a more specific article. This article has, since it earliest version, encompassed a concept that included included marsupial relatives (Thylacosmilus), "proto-cats" in the Nimravidae family, and machairodontine "true cats". And in the more recent versions, Barbourofelidae, the sister taxon to the so-called "true cats" is included. I can see excluding Thylacosmilus from the common name "cats", but excluding Barbourofelidae borders on the arbitrary and pedantic.

Pedantry has already screwed things up. If there's a primary topic for "saber-toothed cat", it's not Machairodontinae, and it's not saber-tooth ecomorph. Smilodon is far and away the best known saber-toothed machairodontine. Smilodon is also (probably better) known as "saber-toothed tiger", but thanks to a pedantic insistence that it isn't a "tiger", in many sources "saber-toothed cat" is employed in contexts where it is clear that the well-known genus Smilodon is specifically what is being referred to. A large number of links to this article could be disambiguated to Smilodon. Also note that, from 2006 until a few days ago, "saber-toothed tiger" and related redirects pointed to this article, not Smilodon. Since "saber-toothed cat" has included marsupial relatives on Wikipedia since 2004, there are links here that shouldn't go to Smilodon or any other "cat", so it's a little more important to check incoming links than was needed for retargetting "saber-toothed tiger". Plantdrew (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so you are suggesting that "saber-toothed cat" should be a redirect to the various saber-toothed feliforms instead. I'd buy that, but note that some of the non felid saber-tooth groups have a term referring specifically to them, "false saber-toothed cats". Also, equating saber-toothed cat with Machairodontinae is per Antón 2013, probably others. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that "saber-toothed cat" be a dab page to catch any incoming links which intend Smilodon. La Brea Tar Pits, for example, links here via the phrase "the saber-toothed cat (Smilodon fatalis)", but doesn't have any links to Smilodon. Dab page could list this article, Smilodon and Machairodontinae (and possibly Nimravidae etc.). There are a lot of incoming links here where Smilodon is a more appropriate target. On the subject of false saber-toothed cats, Metailurus is a machairodontine that's described in it's article as a false saber-tooth (the falseness being in tooth morphology, not taxonomic affinity).

I'm not sure that "saber-toothed" cat could be a redirect to various saber-toothed feliforms. There's no article covering that concept except for this one, and this has an appropriate title for that concept (see [3] and [4] for sources that include Nimravidae as sabre-toothed cats). So effectively, that would require a split, basically copying this article but removing the Creodonts. Plantdrew (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said redirect, I meant disambiguation page (one title of course can't redirect to several articles). So we would have a page similar to, say, cave lion? FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, similar to cave lion. Plantdrew (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support but preferably saber-toothed carnivore. ecomorph is too obscure. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Leaning toward opposed: I'm having trouble following the details of this discussion, but when looking for the WP:COMMONNAME for this group of critters that resemble cats with prominent saber-shaped teeth, it appears that the proposed article title is approximately extinct in the wild, and the other red-linked suggestions don't look very promising either – because they are redlinks. The explanations of why this should be moved seem Greek to me. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

To make it more simple: Only some of the groups covered by this article are ever referred to as "saber-toothed cats", while the rest just have saber-teeth, a feature which has evolved multiple times. Therefore, the broader scope does not match the title. Can't find a better off-hand example now, but it would be similar to if "big cat" discussed other big predators, say hyaenas or wolves, just because they have superficial similarities. The reason why the other examples are red-links is because the most suitable titles, saber-teeth and saber-tooth, are already disambig pages. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. “Saber-tooth cat” is more concise and involves widely recognized words, unlike ecomorph; and is more intuitive and descriptive, given that these were clearly felids.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Like others, you fail to address/recognise the problem of scope. People, please familiarise yourselves with the issue before commenting, an oppose based on ignorance of the subject is not helpful. A credodont or gorgonopsian is not a "saber-toothed cat" by any definition. And yet again, other titles have been proposed, pick any. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Saber tooth cat is, as the article itself clearly shows, wrong. The article is about a tooth morphology found across mammals, and NON-mammals. Cat is VERY specific to one family of Carnivora.--Kevmin § 22:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support As reading through the article clearly indicates there are a number of highly unrelated groups with the term "sabertooth" applied, only ONE of those groups is a cat family member Machairodontinae. The others are everything from Carnivorans, to marsupials (think opossum), to not even mammals, So the assertions that "Saber-toothed cat" is the most appropriate are incorrect, and not based on data.--Kevmin § 22:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Grossly offensive to WP:COMMONNAME. The sabre-tooth cat is a popular subject, and wikipedia needs to cover the subject. That there are non-catlike sabre-toothed animals covered here is a matter of ill discipline and scope-creep. The earliest versions of this page were clearly about sabre-toothed cat-like animals. Unfortunately, archeology based attribute defined classes done neatly slot into modern genetic biological toxonomy.

Better to convert this page to a WP:DABCONCEPT article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Problem with scope/disambiguation

So the above request seemed rather futile, as most commentators didn't seem to bother reading the article or the arguments for some reason, to familiarise themselves with the problem. Saber-toothed cat and saber-toothed predator (or whatever we call it) are two different, though related, concepts. The latter includes the former, not the way around. The problem is, the title of this article refers to a smaller group within a larger group. Therefore, we need two separate pages: one called saber-toothed cat, which is about the smaller group, and one called saber-tooth something (carnivore, predator, whatever, as sabertooth is occupied), for the wider group, which is what this article is currently about, hence the incorrect name. And no, SmokeyJoe, this has absolutely nothing to do with somehow violating common name policies. The title "saber-toothed cat" would be retained, just in another article, most probably as a dab page, as explained in the prior discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree with your interpretation with the knowledge of others. This article has historically been mainly about what is known as "sabre-tooth cats", whether or not that is an accurate concept in modern taxonomy. As such, the history of the article should stay here, other things moved out, and if no real article can be written on this subject accurately, turn it into a WP:CONCEPTDAB. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, as has pointed out again and again above, gorgonopsians, creodonts and marsupials are never referred to as "cats" by any writers, yet this article is about those as well, consistent with the broader "saber-tooth" concept. Just read the article to find out, the intro states it, so does the morphology and "saber-toothed genera" sections. That is the problem here, which others knowledgeable about palaeontology have confirmed as well above. FunkMonk (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• So here is an example of how a saber-toothed cat disambiguation page would look:

A saber-toothed cat is a member of feliformia (cat-like carnivorans) with saber-tooth adaptations (will link to this current article with another name), which includes members of the folowing families:

Felids:

• Machairodontinae
  • Metailurini (false-saber-tooths)
  • Homotherini (scimkitar-toothed cats)
  • Smilodontini (dirk-toothed cats)

Non-felid feliforms

• Barbourofelidae
• Nimravidae

Do you have a reference for your definition of "sabre-tooth cat"? I understand the term to be a generic, loosely defined, verging on modern mythology, because there was no such specific thing. I suspect you are trying to apply revisionism. I think that "sabre-tooth cat" is correctly loosely defined to encompass any cat-like sabre toothed thing, including some gorgonopsians, creodonts and marsupials. How familiar are you with the concept of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Broad-concept_articles? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are incorrect, as a simple Google scholar search would have shown, and sources have already been mentioned in the former section. The term "saber-toothed" is used in the scientific literature to refer to various groups of mammals and relatives with such features. For a few examples:[5][6][7][8][9][10] A more layman friendly account is the recent book sabertooth:[11] Saber-toothed cat refers specifically to feliforms/felids with such features. Yes, some popular accounts may refer to non-felids as "saber-toothed cats", but such accounts also refer to plesiosaurs and pterosaurs as "dinosaurs", and we are not here to spread misconceptions just because they are "common". FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree that sabre-toothed cat refers specifically to anything specific. The term has been used for a long time more generally. This needs to be a generally written Broad concept article linking to the more technically correct things. All of your links confirm to me that the phrase "sabre-toothed cat" is avoided, that the term is not well defined, and you last one even acknowledges this historic association with any sabre-toothed cat-like animal. Further, it contnues to be common for many cat-like animals that are like cats to be referred to as cats. Civet cats, genet cats, fossas, bearcats. The usage of cat is simply not restricted to felidae, but frequently is used according to morphological similarities. You may call this a misconception, but the best solution is to convert this page not to a disambiguation page structured as a taxonomy listing, but to a broad concept article acknowledging the the usage in practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree that saber-toothed cat never refers to anything specific. As a kid, I learned about "saber tooth tigers" in the genus Smilodon; slightly later, I came across the idea that "saber tooth tiger" is an incorrect common name, as Smilodon isn't a tiger, and the "correct" common name for these beasts is "saber tooth cat" (they are cats). See [12] and [13] for sources that specifically mention Smilodon and claim that "saber tooth tiger" is an incorrect name. Smilodon is by far the best known saber tooth, and there are quite a few incoming links to this article that could instead go to Smilodon. There are also a lot of incoming pop culture links that are animals almost certainly inspired by Smilodon, but in the absence of any in-universe source can't be confidently linked there (although in-universe source may perhaps identify the animals as "saber tooth tigers" with that term having been "corrected" on Wikipedia). Plantdrew (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I misread, I thought SmokeyJoe questioned whether "sabertooth" alone referred to anything specific, not "saber-toothed cat". And yet again, all one has to do is to make a simple Google Scholar search, the most rudimentary of research. Here are some examples of using the term synonymously with machairodontinae (felid saber-tooths), as is the norm in the scientific literature:[14][15][16][17][18] And again, the book I mentioned before makes the distinction clear, even in the short blurb:[19] So yet again, both terms are in use, one is just more inclusive than the other. We should follow the published literature, not whatever uninformed misconceptions we might have. Otherwise, whales can just as well be fish, and everything extinct can be a dinosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree; the creodonts and marsupials are only mentioned in the "Saber-toothed evolutionary tree" section, which seems pretty redundant as it is because there's already a cladogram describing their relationship in the "Saber-tooth genera" section. The rest of the article talks about the felids, so, if anything, just take out that redundant section. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 23:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No, as I already said, they are discussed in the intro, under morphology, and evolution, so the article is clearly intended to be about the broader group. The Biology section is even more general. In fact, all sections except for "prey" appear to be about the group as a whole. FunkMonk (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

The second paragraph is poorly written and contradicts information later in the article, specifically the cladogram entitled "Saber-tooth genera." The cladogram clearly shows that members of Machairodontinae are a subfamily of Felidae, and hence are related to cats Felinae and Lions/Tiger/Etc Pantherinae. It is obviously incorrect to say that all Saber-toothed cats are unrelated to modern cats! Another issue with this paragraph is that it says that saber tooth cats are not members of Felidae, yet Machairodontinar are indeed members of Felidae! WTH!

This page is important in showing that not all sabertoothed cats are Machairodontinae; and that convergent evolution brought these large teeth to more than one order and family. Can we change the this paragraph?

Here is how I edited it, but the edits were deleted by Apokryltaros. Not sure why. Please provide feedback.

Suggestion Start***

The most well know saber-toothed cat is the Smilodon, which is popularly known as a Saber Toothed Tiger. Smiliodon is one member of the subfamily Machairodontinae. Many saber-toothed cats belong to the taxonomic subfamily Machairodontinae, which is a member of the cat family Felidae, member of the order Carnivora. Other members of Felidae include modern cats Felinae and Pantherinae.

However, some saber-toothed cats are not related to modern cats; they are not members of Felidae, and are instead members of related families Barbourofelidae and Nimravidae from the "cat-like" carnivoran suborder Feliformia; taxa of the family [Oxyaenidae]], specifically from genus Machaeroides; and two lineages of metatherian mammals, the thylacosmilids and deltatheroideans, which are more closely related to marsupials than to the placental mammals of the other orders mentioned. In this regard, saber-thoothed cats can be viewed as an example of Convergent evolution.

Suggestion End***

I am not a wikipedia expert, so I don't know how to contact Apokryltaros directly. Someone help! Axsvl77 (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Just do your edit, if it gets reversed again, bring it up here, and we can take the other editor to task. If they edit-war, an admin will step in. This article is in a messy state - the 'marsupial lions' shouldn't even be part of an article on saber-toothed cats. 20:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.176.224 (talk)

Thanks! I just did a second reversal. Axsvl77 (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it actually a 'misnomer'?

"However, usage of the word cat is a misnomer, as most saber-toothed "cats" are not related to modern cats of Felidae: instead, many are members of other feliform carnivoran families, such as Barbourofelidae and Nimravidae; the oxyaenid "creodont" genera Machaeroides and Apataelurus; and two lineages of metatherian mammals, the thylacosmilids and deltatheroideans, which are more closely related to marsupials than to the placental mammals of the other orders mentioned. In this regard, saber-toothed cats can be viewed as examples of convergent evolution."

Most of these taxons aren't even referred to as saber-toothed cats, especially not oxyaenids (but I could be wrong). In fact, nimravids and barbourfelids are referred to as false saber-tooths. For the 'saber-toothed cat', the most popular animals that come to mind are felids like Smilodon and Homotherium. The wording of this passage could potentially imply to readers that machairodontines were not cats either.

Would it be better to write something like "Although the machairodontine felids are typically the animals referred to as 'saber-toothed cats', many other animals unrelated to Felidae (and thus, not true cats) took on a similar morphology, such as (etc)"? --TangoFett (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd change "other animals unrelated to Felidae" to "other animals outside of Felidae," as barbourofelids and nimravids are still related to true cats (all three being within Feliformes, after all).--Mr Fink (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the name of this article is not appropriate for the scope, see this earlier move request.[20] FunkMonk (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)