Talk:Cape lion

Size

We need sources that the Cape Lion is about the size of the African Lion. It has been rumoured to have been larger or heavier in many books. And we certainly need a source for 'heaviest Cape lion 270 kg'

That is what I also thought...--Altaileopard 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As with Barbary lions, Cape lions are African lions, it is that they were morphologically distinct subpopulations of African lions belonging to different subspecies, which are referred to as the 'northern' and 'southern' subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The Panthera leo is the largest of the African cats with males achieving a mass of between 200 and 240 kg;females are lighter at 125 kg,meaning the Cape lion is,of course,the largest lion to have lived. At least it was before becoming extinct,sadly. Sonwabiso Pongoshe (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Extinct

Changed its conservation status from 'Extinct in the Wild' into 'Extinct'. There is no scientific evidence that some genetic pure individuals survive in captivity. And removed the IUCN image, as this subspecies is not listed in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Peter Maas\^talk 18:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

about possible descendants and look-alikes

I've added a section, down at the end to be least prominent, about possible descendants and breeding of lions that at least look like Cape lions. I have no expertise and came across this only by accident at the Novosibirsk article. My sources are only newspaper reports about lions at the Novosibirsk Zoo that were identified by South African zoo director John Spence in 2000 as possibly being descended from Cape lions. It was believed that Cape lions or interbred descendants could persist in zoos and circuses, from Cape lions taken to Europe. (By the way the lions were found in Asia, not Europe, which I didn't point out in the article). And he then hoped to breed lions that at least looked like Cape lions. And he hoped to have DNA testing done, but I don't know if that was expensive or impossible or whether or not it was done. If it was done, the results must have been negative or inconclusive, I guess, because I can't find any news reports about results. I wonder if DNA testing can even measure the fraction of descent in a given specimen.

What I read suggests that large size, and wide face, and sturdy legs (including in San Diego Zoo newsletter brief) have been thought to be differentiating characteristics of Cape lions, in addition to the long length and black color of their manes, and the backs of their ears being black. These characteristics are not all covered in this article, although I note the article suggests long manes are not actually so great at differentiating. But some more could be added?

About this article, I think it's valid for it to include at least mention of interest in breeding, or breeding actually going on, in South Africa, towards replicating Cape lions' appearance. Even if it's been proven that no specimens available for such breeding are actually true descendents. And I think this could be in a short section at the end.

But I defer to editors here, and don't mind if you feel this material must be ruthlessly edited down, or relegated to a note, or eliminated altogether (if what I write about is really nonsense). If it is not complete nonsense, though, I'd hope for at least some of it to survive in a note-type footnote.  :)

Thanks, editors here, for producing this article which I was very interested to learn from today. :) --doncram 03:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I further find that National Geographic News covered the Cape lion story in July 2001 with more detail of John Spence's long search, and written better than the year 2000 news I used. And shortly before, National Geographic Today had featured a documentary special on the topic.

References

but I am done here probably, and I don't plan to incorporate that into this article, hoping for an editor here to take action or comment. :) --doncram 04:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, there's [http://library.sandiegozoo.org/news/2001%20news/2001_briefs3.htm this San Dieqo Zoo newsletter brief uses term "look-alike" (so that's not only my term) and reports the Novosibirsk lion Simon looked exactly like Cape lions in paintings (the only images available) that John Spence had seen/studied. And there are more sources now in the Draft:Tygerberg Zoo article where I am reporting a lot of this story. --doncram 05:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As of 2017, Cape lions are recognized as belonging to a wider subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cape lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090329050732/http://www.sibzoo.narod.ru:80/animal/lev.htm to http://sibzoo.narod.ru/animal/lev.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cape lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824064412/http://abc.zoo.ox.ac.uk/Papers/consgen06_lion.pdf to http://abc.zoo.ox.ac.uk/Papers/consgen06_lion.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Etymology regarding the lion subspecies, according to the view of the IUCN

Apart from the issue over whether or not the IUCN's view is actually valid, I know that the IUCN proposed that lions be grouped into P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita, but does that mean that we should say that the IUCN is saying that the Cape lion, which is commonly understood to mean the lions in the Cape region which had dark, luxuriant manes that extended through their bellies, is alive, rather than an extinct population of a genetic group of lions? Leo1pard (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a difficult question. The Cape lion as originally described is extinct. However, other extant lions in south and east Africa are now assigned to the same subspecies. This means the Cape lion is no longer an appropriate common name for the subspecies as, while the subspecies is extant, the Cape lion (P. l. melanochaita sensu Smith 1842) is not. A further complication comes from conservation efforts, where other lions from the currently recognised subspecies will be introduced into the extirpated territory. Would this be a Cape lion? The best we can do is beware of the ambiguities and phrase the text appropriately.   Jts1882 | talk  10:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Your question is ambiguous. Is it possible that you misunderstood the meaning of etymology? Or is your question about taxonomy? --BhagyaMani (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is about taxonomy. The phrase "Cape lion" is used to mean the lion with the dark and luxuriant mane in the Cape area, not other African lions, it is its taxonomic name, Panthera leo melanochaita, that the IUCN proposed classifying other African lions into, and likewise what I mentioned for the regular and taxonomic names for the Bengal and Javan tigers. Leo1pard (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, the URL for this reference from the IUCN is dead, and what the IUCN said in this functional one, regarding their re-classification of lions, is "the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group has provisionally proposed a different split into two subspecies, P. l. leo of Asia and West, Central and North Africa, and P l. melanochaita from South and East Africa. However, Barnett et al. (2014) is based only on mtDNA and could reflect female philopatry," so the 'update' from the IUCN that we put into these articles about different lions and tigers could be in trouble, unless we take care to mention that this was said by the IUCN. Leo1pard (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I put that information regarding the lion, to give you an idea about why the IUCN's reclassification of subspecies can be controversial. Leo1pard (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The members of the Cat Classification Taskforce (CCT) decided that from a taxonomic point of view the African lion populations are not sufficiently distinct to warrant that many different trinomen. Hence the oldest subspecific names are used. See download link that is not difficult to find : --BhagyaMani (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Which other group of people or organisation do YOU consider more appropriate to discuss and revise taxonomic questions? Your personal opinion and conclusions re controversies are not relevant for the CCT's decisions.-- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily 'more' appropriate, but remember, the IUCN's reclassification of tigers has been the subject of a dispute, and I do see one for lions, and we in Wikipedia are supposed to take a WP:Neutral POV, in the case of such disputes. Leo1pard (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Which 'dispute among IUCN people' are you referring to? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily within the IUCN, and here is an example. Leo1pard (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

These don't show a dispute. Are you making fun here, or are you serious? Note that the 1st by Kupferschmidt is 2 years older than the Cat SG's special issue about revised taxonomy. The 2nd does not even reference any source! Since when do journos have expertise in taxonomy? And when has the 3rd been updated? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not just a question of dating, but also a question of the methods involved in determining why this should be a subspecies or not. So unfortunately, these edits in favor of the IUCN, and in opposition towards other sources, can be treated as being WP:Biased. We have to correct such edits. Leo1pard (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently you have no idea about this kind of procedure. CCT members comprised all who published about taxonomic questions re Felidae since at least the turn of the century. And they worked on this revision for several years. You did not even read it, did not even understand the difference between etymology -- see your title -- and taxonomy. But want to question their expertise by referring to a journalist? How ridiculous, am sorry to write this! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not as simple as an editor like myself wanting to question their expertise: Do you remember what the case was for the Ethiopian lion? Leo1pard (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Ethiopian lion

So what has this case to do with felid taxonomy? The authors of this article did NOT raise this question even once. They did neither mention the word 'subspecies' nor did they propose a trimonen for these captive lions. Are you up to prove the revision wrong? or unprofessional? or not having taken into account all peer-reviewed publications that you happen to know? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Question solved, the genetic situation of the Ethiopian lion, besides others, is troublesome for the way that the Cat Specialist Group reclassified subspecies of lions. Like you said here, big cats do not care about how man defines regions, so it is not like P. l. melanochaita cares about being confined to Eastern or Southern Africa, or that P. l. leo cares about being confined to Northern, Western or Central Africa. In short, it is not like the two groups of lions care about the CSG's reclassification. Leo1pard (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Surprise

If you thought that the IUCN was being strict about its reclassification, or unanimous, then think again, because, apart from what I mentioned above, they said:

1) About the lion (http://www.catsg.org/index.php?id=108, http://www.catsg.org/index.php?id=113): "Afterwards the lion was divided into two subspecies: the African lion (Panthera leo leo) and the Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica). However, more recent studies indicate that lions from Asia and West and Central Africa are more closely related to each other than to lions from Eastern and Southern Africa. These two main divisions of lions are not homogeneous as there is genetic subdivision within each, with more genetic variation and deeper divergences within the Eastern and Southern branch than within the Asian plus West and Central African one. Based on these recent genetic studies, two subspecies of the lion are recognised:

Panthera leo leo in Central and West Africa and India, formerly throughout North Africa, South-East Europe, the Middle East, Arabian Peninsula and South-West Asia

Panthera leo melanochaita in southern and eastern Africa.

The contact zone between the two subspecies lies somewhere in Ethiopia."

2) About the tiger (http://www.catsg.org/index.php?id=124): "However, based on recent studies, only two tiger subspecies are proposed (not confirmed)." Leo1pard (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, i know already. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Leo1pard (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Bergmann's rule for lions

See this. Leo1pard (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

See also

As per WP:SEEALSO, you're not supposed to have links in the section "See also", if they are present above. Also, there is no need to put [[]] around self-links. Leo1pard (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please see/contribute to discussion at Talk:Lion#Request_for_comment:_How_many_subpages? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)