Talk:Oncilla

Refs section

I'll come back and fix it when I have time. Seduisant (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Rating

I've changed the rating of this article to B. It's shaping up nicely, with lots of info and good references. Another picture would be nice... Seduisant (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Leopardus

Shouldn't this species be mentioned under Leopardus? Kortoso (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. However, it already is, so luckily there's no change required. Anaxial (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

New species, Leopardus emiliae

A recent taxonomic assessment has recognised three species of tiger cat, adding Leopardus emiliae (Spanish language wikipedia article) to the earlier split. This seems to have been recognised by the ASM as they have included the species in their new biodiversity database, which has now been officially released and is the online successor to MSW3.   Jts1882 | talk  10:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Distribution: description does not match map

The text says it "inhabits elevations as high as 4500m in Colombia, in the Andean highlands in Ecuador and Peru" but on the map the part of Ecuador that is shown is not mountainous:

Omikroergosum (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2026

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: not moved. Closing now instead of relisting, despite complicated discussion that would usually warrant it, as nominator wants to withdraw leaving no editor currently in favour of pushing ahead with the move. I'm obliged to consider it a consensus to not move as three editors supported going with an option that involved not moving the article. This consensus against should however not be prejudicial to a new RM on this potentially being opened sooner than what we usually allow, if discussions on how to handle the taxonomic situation here leads to it. (closed by non-admin page mover) –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:29, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

---

Oncilla → Northern tiger catNorthern tiger cat – Simply calling this species the "oncilla" is a holdover from the era when it was treated as a broadly defined species. The tiger cats are now known not to form a monophyletic group, with the kodkod and Geoffroy's cat nested among their lineages, so using the unmodified name "oncilla" for this species would likely cause confusion.

Although the name "Savanna tiger cat" is sometimes used, the newly described subspecies L. t. antisuyo inhabits cloud forests rather than savanna. "Guiana tiger cat" is the name used for the nominotypical subspecies and is likewise unsuitable for the species as a whole, since L. tigrinus also includes antisuyo from Peru, far from the Guiana Shield.

Although names of the form "xx Oncilla," such as "Savanna Oncilla," are used by MDD, adopting such a title here would be inconsistent with the article titles used for the other species in the tigrinus complex, such as "Southern tiger cat." For consistency within Wikipedia, an "xx tiger cat" title therefore seems preferable. コロネン/Coronene (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

However, given that the classification system is somewhat fluid and it cannot be definitively stated that this species, which includes the Peruvian population, ranges that far north, moving to a scientific name (Leopardus tigrinus) might be an option. In any case, an entity simply referred to as "oncilla" or "tiger cat" (without further qualification) no longer exists in a phylogenetic sense. コロネン/Coronene (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

In other words, there is no monophyletic group corresponding to the traditional concept of the oncilla; any such clade necessarily also includes the kodkod and Geoffroy's cat. コロネン/Coronene (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I neglected to mention that Leopardus emiliae has also been reinstated in the paper (though it seems everyone is too preoccupied with the sensational new species to pay it any attention...). コロネン/Coronene (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I think we should retain an article for the tiger cats / oncilla sensu lato, and spin up a separate one for the northern tiger cat. Even if they are paraphyletic, there is a long historical body of work where “oncilla” could mean any of the species, or even the whole group.

Either way, references will need to be teased out to see which species they refer to. We don’t want to state "facts" about the northern tiger cat (senso stricto) whilst citing work done one the southern, clouded, etc. populations. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:31, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@Pelagic Yes, I agree with the plan to create a comprehensive article covering the tiger cat/oncilla; however, does the current article already treat guttulus and pardinoides as distinct species...? I found it a bit difficult to make a judgment. Which method would be more natural? コロネン/Coronene (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

This is a problem with these splits. Most of the literature is on the single species Oncilla and the article was originally written from this perspective. After the split, the articles scope was changed to treat the narrower species concept, but retained the historical references. In some ways it might be better to keep a single article on the broad species or species group and have sections for the newly recognised species, just as we normally treat subspecies. There is little information on individual species, apart from taxonomic/phylogenetic work, which is probably best treated in a comparative manner. This might be better than several articles with little distinguishing information.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Would support this against trying to figure out if some sources may only refer to one species and if so which one. CMD (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I also support this reasonable proposal. BhagyaMani (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Note: Five species are recognized within what was previously considered a single "tiger cat" species by Lescroart et al. (2026).

• L. tilcayo sp. nov. (Of course, it has not yet been recognized by either the MDD or the IUCN.)
• L. tigrinus (Of course, it has long been recognized by both the MDD and the IUCN.)
• L. pardinoides (It is recognized solely by the MDD.)
• L. emiliae (It is not recognized by either)
• L. guttulus (It is recognized by both the MDD and the IUCN.)

In my view, each of these species has enough notability to warrant a standalone article (indeed, tilcayo, guttulus, and pardinoides already have their own articles).

However, I agree that it is difficult to determine which of these species many of the existing materials correspond to. It may be difficult to distinguish between them based on morphology or ecology.

Even so, as the paper shows, their distributions differ clearly. Regarding habitats, distinctions such as savanna, lowland forest, and cloud forest have also been indicated (though the situation regarding this has been complicated by the present study).

I agree with creating a section that covers "tiger cats" as a whole, but is it really necessary to include species that are already recognized as distinct within that section? コロネン/Coronene (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

There are two separate issues.

• Do the species have notability that can justify a separate article?
• Is the coverage best served by articles with largely overlapping material and minor differences or would one thorough article on the species complex (or subgenus) be a better encylopaedia article?

The splits for the tiger cat are questionable at this time. Only guttulus can be justified by current project guidelines (IUCN and MDD agreement). An article on a cat with one living captive animal, based on a single primary scientific source, is questionable. Wide media coverage isn't a substitute for recognition by appropriate authorities. Even if it is decided that it is notable enough, it doesn't mean the material isn't better covered in a single article.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:31, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jts1882

• The phylogenetic distinctiveness of the L. oncilla (now considered part of L. pardinoides) was recognized by Trindade et al. (2021), and Lescroart et al. (2023) established that pardinoides and oncilla form a single lineage. Since its recognition as a distinct species by de Oliveira et al. (2024), it has been treated in the same manner by Marín-Puerta et al. (2025) and Buitrago-Torres et al. (2026), both of which synonymized narinensis with it.
• L. emiliae was recognized as a distinct species in the 2017 morphological study by Nascimento & Feijó. Although its species status has not been universally accepted, numerous phylogenetic analyses of this lineage have been conducted since then. In de Oliveira et al. (2024), it was synonymized with tigrinus based solely on morphological and ecological similarities, as genetic data for the nominate subspecies tigrinus were lacking. Now, the inclusion of data from true tigrinus by Lescroart et al. (2026) has demonstrated its distinct status.

Regarding L. tigrinus in the strict sense, the antisuyo population was not simply discovered out of the blue by Lescroart et al. (2026); it had previously been identified by Buitrago-Torres et al. (2026) as a population possessing distinct mitochondrial DNA.

Among these, tilcayo and tigrinus tigrinus are likely the only ones that can truly be said to be based on a single article. The taxonomic revision of the tiger cat was not brought about by the sudden publication of a single paper; rather, it is the result of findings accumulated across multiple papers over the course of many years. The paraphyly of the "tiger cats" is also supported by multiple sources. コロネン/Coronene (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I should have been clearer that I was referring to splitting the Wikipedia articles. There are a number of articles on the tiger cat complex and the situation is fluid. As you say narinensis was a species for a while and now it isn't. We don't know if Lescroart et al (2026) is the final word on the relationships or what the final species split will be. The IUCN Cat SG is relatively conservative and they could go for a two species option (guttulus/emiliae and tigrinus/pardinoides/tilcayo) rather than recognise all five. This fluidity is one reason I suggested one article with sections on the species and/or subspecies. This would be much easier to update with the latest results rather than splitting and merging articles, with the complications about page histories and references. The presence of Geoffroy's cat and the Kodkod in the species complex complicates this approach, though. We know the IUCN are assessing these cats at the lineage level and it's possible the next red list update (scheduled for Nov 19) could include the assessments and any taxonomic changes. As I suggested for the Pampas cats, waiting for this IUCN update could make our choices much simpler.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jts1882 Thank you. In light of this, I am considering closing the RM for the time being; would it be possible to withdraw it in its current state? コロネン/Coronene (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

On a separate note, regarding Leopardus narinensis (which already has its own dedicated article), subsequent studies appear to have further increased the likelihood that it is a synonym of L. pardinoides. コロネン/Coronene (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

By the way, the conversation has strayed from the initial discussion about the name change. This situation is just like that of the Pampas cat, so it might be better to remove the RM template and discuss the matter. worth discussing. コロネン/Coronene (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

To reiterate, there is no clade corresponding to "tiger cats" (as such a clade would necessarily include the kodkod and Geoffroy's cat); therefore, for an article covering "tiger cats" as a whole, it is better to use Template:Paraphyletic group rather than Speciesbox or Automatic taxobox, in order to clearly indicate the exclusion of those two species. コロネン/Coronene (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I withdraw this move request for the time being. The discussion has developed into the broader question of how the tiger cat complex should be covered and how the individual articles should be scoped, rather than simply whether this page should be moved to Northern tiger cat. I think it would be better to resolve those issues first and, if necessary, start a new RM afterwards. コロネン/Coronene (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2026 (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.

Photos

The image currently used in this article is highly likely to have been reclassified as L. emiliae (Eastern). Are there any photos from the Guiana Shield (L. t. tigrinus) or Peru (L. t. antisuyo)? コロネン/Coronene (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

"Tiger cat" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tiger cat has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 September 19 § Tiger cat until a consensus is reached. Zeibgeist (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC)