Talk:Big cat

Capitalization of article

Moved big cat to Big Cat since it's a proper noun, more or less, and leaves room for discussion of the so-called "big cats" in the uncapitalized version. -- JohnOwens 01:00 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure Big Cat is *not* a proper noun. Animal names, as a rule, are not proper nouns (with a few obvious exceptions like Grevy's zebra). Funnyhat 04:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clarity again

Also beneath the picture of the tiger is the very unscientific caption "the tiger is the heaviest of the cats" should it be changed, as it doesn't take in to effect extinct cats, does not mention the word species which is important as "Ligers" can and do get bigger but being a hybrid are not a species.

Fixed. In future pls put new comments at the bottom of the talk page and sign your entry with 4 of these ~ . Secret Squïrrel, approx 12:55, 4 Fabruary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)

Remove cheetah and cougar

Felinae is literally small cats. Also, why Neofelis which is in the same subfamily Pantherinae not included, but cheetah and cougar do?

Thus, imo cheetah and cougar should be considered "biggest of small cats", not the opposite "smallest of big cats." Also, cheetah and cougar can't roar like other big cats (with the exception of snow leopard since 2017).

Therefore, i suggest: not to remove them entirely, but just add additional sentence(s) like "sometimes include cheetah, cougar, etc..." based on refs. So, the main structure still just those five from genus Panthera (or include all members of subfamily thus we get good Pantherine (big cats) and Feline (small cats), but i guess not). EdhyRa (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Is the domestic cat still considered a "big cat"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a duplicate of the discussion Talk:Cat#Is the domestic cat still considered a "big cat"? Please make any further comments there. Meters (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

---

When I last looked at this, must have been about 30 years ago, there were 3-4 criteria for whether a cat was a "big" cat or a "little" cat. At that time, despite its size, and possibly counterintuitively, the domestic cat was considered a "big cat". Is this still the case? I understand that criteria have changed? 2001:8003:E46B:3E01:293E:E86:AAE6:E787 (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The domestic cat has never been considered a big cat. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, which i find confusing. I am quite certain that as i said 30 years ago, it was considered a big cat. The only criterion that i can remember is something to do with the way it sat. Are you certain that this has never been the case? 2001:8003:E46B:3E01:699E:B9EF:682D:66D1 (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2025 (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.

merge to Panthera?

I cannot see why they are separate articles; they appear to be synonyms. —Tamfang (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

No, but if that is to occur then a merge to 'Big cat' makes more sense per most common and defining name and per the n-grams. Upon seeing a tiger few would say "Look, a panthera". Much of the panthera article consists of charts, charts easily moved to the Big cat page, which also seems to provide smoother to-the-point descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

No. There are (at least) two other genera (Puma and Acinonyx) listed in this article as being "big cats". A merger either to or from Panthera would be incorrect. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The article's first sentence can be improved, then. —Tamfang (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I have briefly expanded the lead to address the common, imprecise usage and to align with the article's content. Readers are still provided with the narrower definition first and pointed to the Panthera article. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Here are a couple more-academic sources that use "big cat" for non–Panthera spp. I don't have access to the full articles, so haven't cited them in the article. This defines big cats as a casual term including species such as tigers, lions, mountain lions, jaguars, leopards, snow leopards, and cheetahs, in the context of human–wildlife interactions and climate change. Here "big cats" is used in the title of an article about cougars. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is very poor and isn't supported by the references. In the first sentence, neither reference supports the view that typically it refers exclusively to the five Panthera species. Turner's book (ref2) clearly states there are seven extant big cats. This reflects the traditional view. The Davis et al (2010) paper (ref 1) refers to "the five big cats of the genus Panthera" (both in the abstract and introduction) but doesn't say that they are the only big cats. The Carnegie museum reference points out that it is used differently by different people, exclusively for the Panthera cats, for all pantherine cats (plus clouded leopards), or including other large cats (cheetah, lynx). The National Geographic article (ref 4) doesn't state which cats are included when they mention big cats or large cats and is just about methodology for counting cats of any size.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Nat Geo does state which cats are included: There are 38 species of cats on the planet. Most, like the margay, are relatively small. But some—the lion, tiger, leopard, snow leopard, clouded leopard, jaguar, lynx, and cheetah—are big. These big cats are among the most beloved and recognizable animals on the planet. It doesn't say whether the list is complete or state any criteria other than "big". But I agree overall that the article is incoherent. It should describe how the term is/has been used, including inconsistencies or imprecision, and summarize and point to articles on various taxa for a more complete picture. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree; the opening sentence is original research at best. "Big Cats" is not a scientific term. (But *Panthera* is, of course. The terms are not synonymous unless the speaker has that intention. Drsruli (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

"Big cats" may include any feline species with recorded weights of over 100lbs.

“Big cat” is a colloquial, not a scientific, term. See National Geographic here employs a similar definition: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/facts/big-cats-1#:~:text=But%20some%E2%80%94the%20lion%2C%20tiger,recognizable%20animals%20on%20the%20planet Drsruli (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

First line defining "big cats"

This seems to be original research, as the source is only a subjective example of such use. Drsruli (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I have reworded the opening sentence (Special:Diff/1348874983). There is no consensus among editors to accept the over-simplified statement that zoologists consistently and exclusively use "big cats" to refer to Panthera. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

On the subject of replacing the previous images

I'm not sure if the technical solution I arrived at for replacing the images (adding a Multiple Image template within the image slot of the Paraphyletic group template) was the best, as it adds an additional border around them. The previous images were all one image file, which I would've done with these too if not for one being under a different license*. If any of you can find a better technical solution for this, then great.

• This also goes for the image file I replaced - one of the two files it was derived from is under a CC BY Share-Alike license, but the final composite was uploaded under GFDL. I believe it violates copyright.

Mhazandaren (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)