Talk:Felidae

American Lion

This article has an image of an extinct "American Lion." The Page Museum at the La Brea Tar Pits has a skeleton that used to be labeled an "American Lion," but is now labeled a "North American Jaguar." They say it's anatomically closer to a jaguar than a lion. This, of course, makes total sense. I don't have a citation for this, but we should update the article if we can find one. MiguelMunoz (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Simplifying the taxobox: "Felinae (sensu lato)"

I noticed that the taxobox currently features a nested hierarchy with an unlinked "Felinae (sensu lato)" containing both †Miopanthera, Pantherinae, and "Felinae (sensu stricto)". As I understand Felinae (sensu lato) is historical and no longer relevant range for Felinae What are you thinking about deleting on taxabox subdevicion page the "Felinae (sensu lato)" and leave only "Felinae (sensu stricto)" linked faminly? Quazzy23 (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

The Felinae sensu lato tends to be used by those studying fossil cats, who use Felinae for all conical-toothed cats, e.g. Werdelin et al (2010; researchgate) or Piras et al (2018; doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2018.01.034) It can't be dismissed as historical, even if not used by those studying extant cats. However, it's contradictory to use Pantherinae under Felinae sensu lato, as that classification would use Pantherini. I suggest using the three subfamilies in the taxobox with no sensu anything. The taxobox should stick to one classification with the different usage explained in the text of the article.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:03, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Leopardus tilcayo

I noticed that the newly described species of wildcat—ẻ— hasn't been added yet! Can someone with more knowledge on editing clatograms here put them between the Oncilla and Pampas cat? Elliediekatze (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Just added it. EinesteinNobel — $E=mc^{2}$ 17:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

yeah someone should do that i guess. Rush1681 (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The cladogram is based on a particular source, which didn't include Leopardus tilcayo. We can't just add it where we think it should go without proper sourcing. Making composite cladograms utilising material from different sources is discouraged.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that's why it got reverted. I'm having trouble finding a reliable source to back up the tilcayo's place within Leopardus, so maybe someone else should find one. EinesteinNobel — $E=mc^{2}$ 15:12, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

that's fair ~2026-51507-09 (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

There isn't a source that can do that. I've argued in the past that it would be legitimate to have a main tree from source A and then change a particular node to use source B (and this got resistance). So Leopardus would use source B. However, we don't have a source for the whole genus. Lescroart et al (2026) would be a good source for tiger cats and allies, but we'd need another source for Pampas cats. Then other parts of the tree would need other sources. The wild cat relationships are clearly not correct, as the domestic cat is closer to lybica in more focused studies. In the end it is better to use one source and not get accused of original research. There is also the issue that the extra tiger cats and pampas cats are not currently recognised by all authorities (e.g. the IUCN). This is an article on the whole family and should given an overview of the cats. The details of further splits can go in more specialist articles.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:44, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

There is a serious error in the phylogenetic tree

Li et al. (2016) did NOT sample Leopardus guttulus. The lineage from northeastern Brazil in their analysis corresponds instead to the population later treated as L. emiliae. Why, then, is this lineage labelled as L. guttulus in the tree? This appears to be a misreading of the taxa actually sampled in the paper. コロネン/Coronene (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

guttulus is clearly wrong. It looks like it was assumed the two lineages corresponded to the two species recognised around that time (it might have been me). Can we be sure it is emiliae? NE Brazil could just extend in to the hybrid zone (Fig 1, Lescroart et al 2026). Do we know where LTI01 and LTI02 in Li et al (2017) were collected (I can't find it in the supplementary materials). It does seem Lescroart et al used one of the specimens used by Li et al (Leopardus emiliae 6 = NCBI SRA: SRX3213483 from Li et al) but I can't match it to the LTI numbers used in Li et al.

The two lineages in Li et al (2016) are consistent with the two clades in Lescroart et al (2016), so the diagram would be correct it emiliae was lumped with guttulus. However, can we be sure the lineage in Li et al is emiliae or should we just label the terminals Costa Rica and Brazil?  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:57, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jts1882 Trindade et al. (2021) expanded the genome-wide SNP dataset of Li et al. (2016) by including Leopardus guttulus, and Lescroart et al. (2023) subsequently conducted a broader whole-genome analysis that included the same major tiger-cat lineages. The northeastern Brazilian lineage sampled by Li et al. (2016) continued to be identified geographically as the “Northeastern Brazil” lineage in subsequent studies, and Lescroart et al. (2023) explicitly referred to this lineage as Leopardus tigrinus emiliae. In contrast, genomic data from the Guiana Shield population representing L. t. tigrinus s.s., including material associated with the type-locality region, were analyzed genetically for the first time by Lescroart et al. (2026). Thus, the northeastern Brazilian samples analyzed by Li et al. (2016) can reasonably be inferred to represent the lineage later identified as L. t. emiliae, rather than L. t. tigrinus or L. guttulus. However, this identification remains inferential, as an individual-level match between the specimens used by Li et al. (2016) and those explicitly assigned to L. t. emiliae in later studies could not be verified from the published sample metadata. コロネン/Coronene (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

A summary:

• Li et al (2016) have LTI-01 and LTI-02 as NE Brazil tiger cats
• Trindade et al (2021) have LTI-1 & LTI-6 as NE Brazil tiger cats, attributing samples to Li et al (2016). The map in the supplementary materials puts them near the east coast, closer to guttulus than tigrinus, so clearly in emiliae territory.
• Lescoart et al (2023) have LTI-6 and "LTI-699, bLti242" as Leopardus tigrinus emiliae in their supplementary materials. They attribute the sample LTI-6 to Li et al (2019, not 2016)
• Lescoart et al (2026) have L.emiliae 6, attributed to Li et al (2019), and three samples they collected (in 2026 or 2023)

It's hard to come to any other conclusion than that the NE Brazil tiger cats of Li et al (2016) are emiliae, but is this a 2+2=4 determination or original research?  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jts1882 While identification at the individual-specimen level is difficult, we can at least establish continuity at the population level: these studies consistently refer to the same Northeastern Brazilian tigrina population.

Furthermore, Trinidade et al. (2021) explicitly describe this population as:

«“tigrina populations from northeastern Brazil (NE tigrina), identified as L. tigrinus or L. emiliae depending on the assumed classification”»

Under the more recent taxonomic treatment recognizing Leopardus emiliae as a distinct species, it is therefore reasonable to identify this Northeastern Brazilian lineage as L. emiliae.

Admittedly, because the individual specimens used in the respective studies cannot yet be matched with complete certainty, this identification necessarily involves some inference. However, it is supported by the explicit continuity of the Northeastern Brazilian population across these studies and seems preferable to retaining identifications that are inconsistent with the current taxonomic treatment. コロネン/Coronene (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Clearly it should be changed, but which:

• Northern tiger cat (L. trigrinus, Costa Rica) and Northern tiger cat (L. trigrinus, Brazil) [two species classification, IUCN]
• Clouded oncilla (L. pardinoides) and Savanna oncilla (L. trigrinus) [three species classification, as MDD]
• Clouded tiger cat (L. pardinoides) and Eastern tiger cat (L. emiliae) [4-5 species classification, Lescroart et al, 2026]

Using the Oncilla variants as favoured by MDD is another consideration. The common names should match the wikipedia article titles,s but they are not currently consistent. Incidentally, L. emiliae is the only proposed tiger cat species without an article at the moment.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jts1882 I see; indeed, systematic plausibility and the (current) classification used for adoption by those institutions are two different things.

Li et al. (2016) had already demonstrated the paraphyly of "tigrina" and the distinctness of the Central American populations, a fact of which the CSG was aware as early as 2017. The decision to designate them as a separate species at that time was deferred pending further research, as the relationship with the South American populations remained unclear (Subsequently, it is considered conspecific with pardinoides.).

The current classification of MDD follows de Oliveira et al. (2024). They treated tigrinus and emiliae as the same species primarily based on morphological and ecological continuity, though they acknowledged the need for genetic data on the tigrinus populations from the Guiana Shield, which had not yet been obtained. Lescroart et al. (2026) conducted the first molecular phylogenetic analysis to include tigrinus tigrinus, rendering the treatment of it as conspecific with emiliae untenable.

The MDD will likely be reflected in the next update. Until then, the original paper remains the sole basis for this classification. Thus, while it is possible to explicitly demonstrate where the existing classification has broken down, there is room for debate as to whether it can be replaced by primary sources. コロネン/Coronene (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2026 (UTC)