Talk:Cheetah/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Headline text

How can I put this article to the Category:World_records and so as there it will printed something like "Speedest Animal"? (sorry for my English) Setti

---

Some genetic researchers were studying Acinonyx jubatus to find out why he had a high abnormal sperm count. They gave a group of these animals a histocompatibility (tissue-type) test.

"This is singular," observed one to the other. "Every one of these cats gave the same answers."

"Aw," drawled the other, "they're all a bunch of cheetahs!"

PierreAbbat

---

Does anyone have info on the Cheetah's Population bottleneck

---

It is the only cat that cannot completely retract its claws ..... Even completely retracted, the claws remain visible and are used during acceleration.

Isn't the above self-contradictory?

Sebastjan

Yes -- I edited this article and I should have spotted that. Jacquerie27

sort of, but less so if phrased: It is the only cat that cannot completely retract its claws ..... Even when maximally retracted, the cheetah's claws remain visible and are used during acceleration. -- Someone else 08:07 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

But "maximally" is a very ugly word and it's implicit in "when retracted" anyway. Jacquerie27

Ok, go for prettiness over clarity then. :) -- Someone else 19:08 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

I made it ugly again... Baboo 05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheetah Speed

The math on the speed isn't very accurate... I'm not sure which is right, but the units don't match up...

110kph = 68.31mph

96.54kph = 60mph

Gordon McCreight - Oct. 6 2004

The point made above is important (from the point of view of accuracy) and is related to the following point. My understanding is that experts believe the fastest "clocked" (documented) speed of a cheetah is close to 65 miles an hour. To push this up to 70 miles an hour is not good for an encyclopedia that aims for accuracy. Superlatives (such as "Guinness Book" numbers) tend to "drift" in the retelling, with a strong upward pressure that is largely unconscious in its exaggeration. Let's find authoritative sources to keep a rational ceiling on the natural tendency toward escalation of this fast cat's velocity. I would urge whoever is most involved in this article to edit the speed back down to 65 mph, until someone can identify an authoritative report of a quicker cheetah. Thanks. 65.223.141.108 17:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557976/Cheetah.html) has a much lower speed posted: 93 km/h or 58 mph Diploid 14:31, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)

The cheetah's speed is not the fastest of all terrestrial animals. A wildebeest stampede can reach speeds equal to that of a cheetah. The reason that cheetahs are so well known for how fast they are is because of their spectacular acceleration. The short bursts do reach the speeds that are mentioned above, but it is not true that they are the "fastest". It is more correct to say they have the fastest acceleration of all terrestrial animals. Having said that their top speed is nothing to scoff at as the cheetah is one of the fastest land animals, but I'm only saying that is is not correct to say they are the outright fastest terrestrial animal. My sources are the World Book Encyclopedia 2006, article: 'cheetah'(hard copy), and MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557976/Cheetah.html).

Although the wildebeest speed thing seems to be incorrect, if a faster animal is found the cheetah would be the quickest. Fast refers to top speed, quick refers to acceleration. --BHC 19:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The fastest scientifically measured speed for a Cheetah was recorded by Professor Craig Sharp of Brunel University (London, UK) in 1965, a figure accepted by Guinness; though the unit conversions are inconsistent: 64.3 mph or 29 m/s or 104.4 km/h (the latter two are a match, however 64.3 mph=103.5 km/h). I believe the imperial figure to be the original one, as not only it was mentioned first, but it seems that this figure was converted to meters per second with given accuracy, and further to kilometers per hour with a greater accuracy.

As for the Wildebeest, I've never seen a speed greater than 80 km/h (50 mph) in any respectable source. And the claim that the maximum speed is reached in groups, a stampede, rather than individually seems just absurd. Sounds like BS to me – or is it WBS? --Anshelm '77 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the absurdity. Yeah, sure they reach their maximum speed in groups.. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 07:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The speed was changed to the 70 mph figure. I changed it back to Sharp's figure. Also, where did the info on the acceleration and cars come from? A reference is needed. - Slow Graffiti 00:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

People have been messing about with the speed, I've just changed it from 80mph to 65, going by the reference I've cited, although it was km/h. If anyone changes it in future (although this shouldn't be necessary I hope!) please cite a source otherwise anyone could just type in any old nonsense. Thanks. Ben ^(talk) 22:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a cheetah expert but thought it's contradictory to say that cheetahs can do 0-70 in 3 seconds, while stating that the top speed is actually 65mph.Hoyun 11:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Queued images

File:04123 Cheetah in Tree.jpg

Thick brush

In the subchapter "Habitat" we read "thick brush". What's that? An habitat or the result of a vandalism? Manuel Anastácio 02:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Brush refers to a type of habitate somewhere between a light forest and a thickly grassed grassland.

Replacing Image

I feel that the second photo in this entry(cheetah in Kenya) is of somewhat low quality(both in terms of resolution and the fact that it is slightly O.O.F.). I was wondering if it would be inappropriate to replace it with either of these photos, and if not, which one would work better in the article. Both photos were taken by myself and licensed under CC-Attribution ShareAlike. I'm somewhat new to this and want to make sure I'm not committing a grave sin by replacing another's photo with my own.

• 
• 

Schuyler s. 20:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do that. If the licence of the photos are adequate, and apparently they are, just go ahead and use them! :) ≈ Ekevu ^talk _contrib 17:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Reproduction and social life

I thought I better add this here just to let you all know. I've adjusted the section with the above name, it was rather messy (i.e. it was all one paragraph) and some parts were slightly incorrect. In my opinion more work needs to be done on it because there's so much that can go under that one heading, it really needs to be split up into sub-sections - like I did for "vocalisations" - and more info added in each. I'll try and get round to this in due time. Meanwhile any comments or issues with the changes, just let me know! Ben 09:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Speed

I was just watching animal planet and there was a charity event where two cheetahs pursued a dragged purple cloth. There was an officer with a radar gun clocking them (he was positioned so the cheetahs were running straight towards him), one cheetah recorded 58 mph the other 67 mph.

I'm also curious about cheetahs' max speed possible. The figures given by various sources don't converge, leaving a gap of over 10 mph from one end to the other. All the same, I admire very much the animal's stunning sprint which no other creatures on this planet could reproduce. - Lightdawn 03:54, 3 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Cheetah.org is the site maintained the Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF), an organization pushing cheetah awareness/conservation. They state that cheetahs can run 70 mph (112.7 km/h). They (led by a leading authority on cheetahs, Dr. Laurie Marker) are scientists who would obviously have sources for such a claim. The only 'shift' I can imagine is perhaps a shift to make it an even '70 mph' to the public, but I do not suspect this is the case.

Earthwatch Institute Journal has an article (in Vol. 23 Issue 1, and elsewhere) stating that cheetahs can reach 110 km/h (68.4 mph). If the cheetah.org claim is shifted, it could be based on the same data used here (as both are from the CCF).

In the Journal of Zoology, Sharp has an article devoted entirely to clocking the speed of cheetahs (1997, Volume 241, titled 'Timed running speed of a cheetah'). His conclusion is 64 mph (103 km/h).

I'm sure I've read other figures as well; I'll have to dig up those sources tomorrow. In any event, the current 62 mph claim used in the article is obviously low. Slow Graffiti 07:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

More references for cheetah speed - Hildebrand in the Journal of Mammalogy also came to the conclusion of110 km/h (68.4 mph) in 1959 ("Motions of the running cheetah and horse") and again in 1961 ("Further studies in the locomotion of the cheetah"). These are obviously older studies.

I am changing the article to read 64 mph (103 km/h) according to the Journal of Zoology referenced above. If a more recent source can be cited with a different speed projection, please fill the rest of us in here. - Slow Graffiti 01:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

From this discussion it remains debatable whether the cheetah is indeed faster compared to a wildebeest stampede: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildebeest#Stampede The wildebeest figure was given as 65 mph, but from the apparent lack of evidence (i.e. well-documented studies conducted on each species's maximum speed) supporting the wildebeest claim as compared to the cheetah's, this issue should remain open for now.Ming2020 09:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for integrating the information into the article. Well done. I hope some more reliable information becomes available in the near future. I'll be looking out. - Slow Graffiti 18:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Bottleneck Concept

These are the findings from which scientists assert the bottleneck idea:

"In 1981 Stephen O'Brien and colleagues from the US National Cancer Institute began an investigation in to cheetah breeding difficulties. Forty semen samples were taken from 18 members of the captive South African population and compared to those of domestic cats. Spermatozoal concentrations in the cheetah samples were found to be ten less tiomes than those of domestic cats. In addition, over 70% of the cheetah spermatozoa were morphologically abnormal, compared to only 30% in their domestic counterparts.

"To compound these problems a study of over 200 gene loci from South African cheetahs has revealed that the population contains ten to 100 times less genetic variation than other mammalian species. These data, O'Brien suggests, place the cheetah in a position similar to that of inbred laboratory mice, indicating a population bottleneck in its recent evolutionary history. This means that the cheetah population was, at one time, reduced to only a few individuals - from which today's cheetah population, leaving it less able to survive in the face of environmental change, disease or threats."

To further prove their inbred relatedness, unrelated cheetahs exchanged skin grafts. This allows monitoring of the Major Histocompatibility Complex, the "most polymorphic locus in vertebrates," which codes for MHC molecules - antigen-presenting glycoproteins present on T lymphocytes. These are responsible for recognizing foreign molecules in the body, such as skin grafts from another organism, and triggering an immune response. The acceptance of skin grafts from unrelated cheetahs far exceeded the acceptance among unrelated domestic cats (which is usually rejection).

Reference: Santer, R. (2001). 'Letting the cat out of the bag.' Biologist, 48: 72-74.

Summed up, the genetic variation among cheetahs is similar to that of identical twins. This explains the past (cheetahs experienced a population bottleneck, and are now descendents of the small surviving group) as well as the present and future (difficulty with reproductive success because of typical problems that come with inbreeding). Slow Graffiti 07:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Classification

I was tossing around the idea of filling out the 'Classification' section with actual taxonomic information (e.g. that in the 'Genetics' section), and moving all of the info about the word "cheetah" (as interesting as it is, it isn't a classification) to the intro paragraph. Any strenuous objections here? - Metanoid 20:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been preparing a completely reorganized setup for this page, using the Gray Wolf article as a standard (though its obviously got more information on it). I think a lot of the subjects here are mashed together in inappropriate places. Give me a few more days and I'll post details. One of the ideas - the "description" shouldn't spend all its time comparing cheetahs to other large cats (this should actually go with Taxonomy, probably, along with the Classification section). While it isn't exactly material for Taxonomy, I think the extended etymology of "cheetah" is inappropriate content for the introduction paragraph. Is there another animal page with such an extended etymology? Does it warrant its own section? - Slow Graffiti 02:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Reproduction and social life

The text reads: "The cheetah can live over twenty years, but their life is often short, for they lose their speed with old age. ... Life span is up to 12 years in wild, but up to 20 years in captivity."

• • There seems to be a disconnect between the life span in situ and ex situ. First the reader is led to believe that the life span can be as high as 20 years in the wild -- "for they lose their speed with old age."

Liz K.

Main Image (in Tax Box)

Where'd the SwiftCheetah.jpg image go? Why was it deleted? - Slow Graffiti 16:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Grammatically Incorrect

"Unlike males and other felines, females do not establish territories." This sentence seems to imply that a female is a type of feline (indicated by the use of the word, "other"). 15 August 2006

Although it doesn't really imply that to me, I've edited it to clarify "female cheetahs" rather than just females. Thanks for pointing that out. Ben 22:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Purring

conflicting statements in the article, are cheetahs the only big cats the purr or not? "By contrast, lions, tigers, leopards, and jaguars can roar but cannot purr, except while exhaling. "... "Purring is made when the cheetah is contented, usually during pleasant social meetings (e.g. a mother with her cubs). Out of all of the Big Cats, cheetahs are the only ones that purr."

Hi Mazzawi, cheetahs are the only big cat that can purr on both the inhale and the exhale. Other big cats can purr - but only on the exhale. Thanks for pointing that out and I've edited the article to refelct that. Please remember to sign your name with: ~~~~ after your comments. Thanks. Ben 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Domestication

"In much of their former range they were domesticated by aristocrats and used to hunt antelopes in much the same way as is still done with members of the greyhound group of dogs." I was under the impression that cheetahs could be tamed but could not be domesticated. The aristocrats didn't breed cheetahs like greyhounds, they captured wild ones and tamed them. --BHC 19:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

i need to know...

why can a cheetah run as fast as it does??i need to know for class..

What is the cheetah's hunting success rate?

Yandman's edit

Hi Yandman, I did not think that your changes were an improvement to the article. You cut out perfectly relevant facts and I don't believe that is "sounded like a kid's wildlife programme." If that is the case then prehaps you could rewrite the facts to a tone you consider more appropriate for an encyclopedia, rather than just deleting them. Thank you. Ben ^(talk) 23:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ben. The problem is that inserting these facts into the article will always be problematic. The fact is that the Cheetah does 0-60 in 3.5 secs. The rest, while being true, is unnecessary interpretation. Why those specific cars? Why that specific airplane? They're not the fastest vehicles in their class, they're not the slowest, e.t.c... While these facts are interesting, they're better off being in the body of the article (if they're included at all), because the intro has to keep to the important stuff. In much the same way that we wouldn't put "it weighs as much as 532 african elephants" in the intro to the 747. yandman 16:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Super Cheetah

Visual depiction of the super cheetah

While many Cheetahs are said to reach speeds of 70 mph(120 km/h), a new variation has been rumored to apear nocturnally across the plains, said to reach double the speed of what was originally thought. Animal Planet has an upcoming documentary entitled: "Super Cheetahs: The Investigation" in which famed naturalist Austin Stevens tracks and records the new species, aptly called "Super Cheetahs". Their wild speed is due to genetic engineering in which gentic scienctists have embedded bionic and mechanical machinery to increase performance, and adrenaline production. The Super Cheetah can reach speeds up to 127 mph (204 km/h). The species diet consists solely on metal. In result of this, many documentary vans and cameras have been demolished, thought to be snacks. The actual existence of said species is speculated.

Probably because you provided no reliable sources. JonHarder 03:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

why was the section on the super cheetah species removed?

please respond, and i need to know why wikipedia denies knowledge

• There is no reason to beleive it actually exists.--Marhawkman 16:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is "Super Cheetah" thing is total bs. The picture of one is from Transformers for crying out loud!

Typical/Atypical

"...atypical member of the cat family (Felidae) that hunts by speed rather than by stealth or pack tactics"... This gives the false (?) impression that "pack tactics" are typical of Felids. Aren't lionesses atypical in their group tactics? --Wetman 09:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wetman, pack tactics are not typical of felids, I think the first part of the statement is seperate from the second part about its hunting. Although in what way it is atypical the author of that sentence didn't think to say. Ben ^(talk) 23:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Height

How tall are these things? Xiner 20:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Their shoulder height is: males: 74-94cm and females: 67-84cm. Hope this helps. Ben ^(talk) 22:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pink Cheetahs

A recent edit of the article stated the existence of pink cheetahs. It wreaks to me of vandalism. In all my studying, I've never heard of such. The idea of the "cat of the sun" exists, but nothing else here. - Slow Graffiti 18:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably just a name, I mean PINK CHEETAHS, it just isn't natural. Maybe it's JUST A NAME.Atomic45 05:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody call Peter Sellers. Or Blake Edwards. Or even Henry Mancini. Trekphiler 02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

capitalization

I did a "find and replace" on the article to change the generic use of the word "Cheetah" throughout it to lowercase "cheetah". Maybe I am stepping onto a controversial landmine, I am not sure :) . My first impression of the page was the uppercase style looked unusual and it was pretty distracting (also inconsistent - the lowercase form also was used in places). Before making the change I looked in a lot of different places on wikipedia and elsewhere for guidance on whether the word "cheetah" should be uppercase or lowercase. For instance this article: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). From that article and various "talk" pages of discussions it seems that there are controversies about caps or no-caps for different types of animals, extending even up to the professionals. I didn't see controversy or specifics about cats but mainly birds and fish, so the wikipedia guidances really didn't give me a solid resolution either way about Cheetah vs cheetah.

From there I turned to four real world sources of expertise. I soon came to the conclusion that cheetah should in fact be lowercase:

• http://scholar.google.com - A wonderful corner of google that allows you to search scholarly papers on subjects. In searching for "cheetah", it became abundantly clear that professional biologists do not capitalize cheetah in their work (except when it's part of a title to a paper or article).
• Cheetah Conservation Fund - Given as an external link in the article and from what I can tell a well-known, very respected organization. They do not capitalize cheetah.
• De Wildt Wild Cheetah Project - Another external link in the article and also from what I can tell a well-known and highly regarded organization. They do not capitalize cheetah.
• Webster's Dictionary - cheetah is listed as lower case.

At first I was inclined to leave "King Cheetah" uppercase since it seemed a more specific, proper-noun varient of cheetah, but again in searching scholarly papers with google, I found it was used on a lower case basis by professionals. Beyazid 00:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I've adopted the WP:BIRD rationale for all of the species I edit. I'm in the process of updating all of our mammal articles to reflect Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition. It uses capitals for species, too. I'm reverting your lowercasing. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should WP:BIRD be followed for all species? (And only the third sentence in, it says, "In general, these are only suggestions, and you shouldn't feel obligated to follow them.") I've looked it up on Britannica and cheetah also is lower case there. Do you have additional sources, or can you point to a wikipedia guideline that is for topics of mammals or cat species? I have many multiple corroborating sources from reference authorities and professional journals that show "cheetah" is the actual accepted usage. Thanks. Beyazid 06:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition. There have been a number of discussions on this, none of them conclusive, with various references using various different styles. Since there is some conflict, it is up to we, the Wikipedia editors, to come up with a style. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see there's more of a central conversation on the overall capitalization issue (WikiProject Mammals talk) and I'll post there also.

I've returned the article to have the lowercase form of "cheetah" for the following reasons:

• The consensus guideline on style, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, refers wikipedia editors to authoritative sources such as Chicago Manual of Style to resolve questions like this. CMoS does address this topic in section 8.136: "For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.127... "In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives" (eg "Rocky Mountain sheep"). There isn't a wikipedia guideline to supplant it on this topic.
• Webster's dictionary - lowercase
• Oxford dictionary - lowercase
• Encyclopedia Britannica - lowercase
• Associated Press Stylebook - lowercase
• Walker's Mammals of the World 6th edition -- "the most comprehensive -- the pre-eminent -- reference work on mammals" doesn't capitalize cheetah or other fauna. MSW3 recognizes and cites WMotW in its introduction.

And finally, and most surprisingly!, MSW3 itself doesn't actually support the uppercase style. It uses the lowercase form cheetah in its commentary. See pg 532, "Family Felidae" comments: "Most studies agree on the clear separation of the "big cats" (i.e., Panthera, Neofelis, Uncia) from the remainder. However, within the remaining group, there does not appear to be a clear consensus. Even the cheetah's (Acinonyx) traditional position has been called into question (Bininda-Emonds et al., 1999; Mattern and McLennan, 2000)."

For those who haven't seen MSW3 before, it's an academic compendium of taxonomic information and uses a highly hierarchal and formalized structure for presenting its information. It doesn't discuss its topics or write about them in the way an article or book would. For each species, there are standard sections including "type species", "synonyms", "common name". The "common name" is presented on a single line for each species in the format: "COMMON NAME: Cheetah." I think it's a misunderstanding of the book to take the style it adopted to present its voluminous information as for some reason a style standard for written materials like articles. It's clearly not. MSW3 itself doesn't use the uppercase style when it is discussing topics with regular writing outside of its formalized structure. For another example see the "Wildcat" entry comment on pg 537, where again, like with cheetah, it follows a style consistent with how CMoS would have it, and refers to "European wild cat". All the best. Beyazid 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Man-Eaters?

I saw on TV that cheetahs don't eat humans, I need some-one to confirm this, it might be good for the article.Atomic45 05:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

- I think I read this in the Spotted Sphinx, cheetahs may show agression, hiss and make other threatening sounds, but they will never attack. I also read about cheetah cannibalism though, that's another thing. Feb 24th 2007

Gangbangers?

I've heard groups of up to 3 males will cooperate in bringing down larger prey, even ostriches. Can somebody confirm & include? Trekphiler 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

- Here is a video I found on youtube about two cheetahs killing a gnu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXO3h6bpEUU though only one cheetah really does the work, the other one is still helping. Feb 24th 2007

- Also, in the National Geographic video "Season of the cheetah" there are three brother cheetahs who cooperate to kill a wildebeast. Two of them are attacking and the third one seems to guard them and scares away any wildebeast that are thinking of helping their relative. Though they don't manage to kill the beast because of hyenas. March 10, 2007 — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.201.13 (talk • contribs).

Unlike males and other felines, females do not establish territories?

Why does it have this sentence, it would make more sense and just be easier to use:

As with most other felines, the females do not establish territories.

I tried to change it but it was reverted, with no explanation. C hris_huh^talk 18:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuor replacement has a different meaning than the original. In part, the original says the opposite of what your replacement says. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In Iran, cheetahs collared for the first time

I just heard an interview with Luke Hunter on NPR on KQED-FM 11:50 p.m. See also: Wildlife Conservation Society (March 2007) "In Iran, cheetahs collared for the first time" Physorg.com. James S. 06:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You can add it to the Asiatic Cheetah article. Ben ^(talk) 13:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Review

I believe a number of changes are needed on this article, for one the cheetah is not a typical felidia, infact its unlike any of the other cats,i do not have the time at this point to write a full and detailed reason of how they differ from other cats, but believe me they are NOT typical ie non retract claws is not typical. i will review and attempt to edit as best as possible over the comming months. i have a large amount of big cat articles im viewing and reviewing and these things take time, any help would be a great help. cheers and kind regards CheetahKeeper 08:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just make sure you use citations for the changes you make. Your own personal knowledge is not sufficient. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and "atypical" means "not typical". And "felidia" isn't correct. "Felid" is probably what you mean. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit origin

You were both right and wrong. Citra- means "variegated, speckled, spotted according to Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon. Dictionary.com gives it's own origin and American Heritages as follows:

[Origin: 1695–1705; < Hindi cītā < Skt citraka leopard; cf. Pali cittaka, Prakrit cittaya]
[Hindi cītā, from Sanskrit citrakāyaḥ, tiger, leopard : citra-, variegated + kāyaḥ, body; see kwei-2 in Indo-European roots.]

So I've adjusted the intro to fit these sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers I was aware of the meaning of atypical but im not sure our average user is. Thanks on the clarrification of the name, though spotted one is more oftenly used and is seen in other sth african languages, however i do like your new intro. Thanks For the Adjust, Cheers and Kind Regards CheetahKeeper 13:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

King Cheetahs

The section needs a description of what a king cheetah would acyually look like. It only describes what it doesn't look like. Williamb 01:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

From the Description section: "Cheetahs also have a rare fur pattern mutation: cheetahs with larger, blotchy, merged spots are known as 'King Cheetahs'." Are operating on the presumption that a reader will read the whole article, or skip to sections of immediate interest? Should the description of King Cheetahs be moved from Description to King Cheetahs? I think so, especially since they are so rare. - Slow Graffiti 02:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is already a king cheetah article, so I have suggested a merge. Either that, or the king cheetah info needs to be moved from the cheetah article to the king cheetah article. Otherwise, redundancy exists. Synapopyse 03:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd propose that the separate article remain the main source, and the subject be briefly addressed here; not alone, but in a paragraph that mentions other possible colour variations. - Slow Graffiti 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The main article is a stub, anyway. I'd suggest merging it and making King Cheetah a redirect. Tigerhawkvok 22:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a separate article is warranted, given the detailed information about king cheetah spottings there. Too much detail for the main cheetah article. - Slow Graffiti 18:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think merging the King Cheetah article would just add to the jumble of information that's here already. What's in the main Cheetah article covers quite a lot of topics and I think seperating them up better organises the information. Ben 21:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the King Cheetah article should be merged with this one. The King Cheetah article offers no further information about the Cheetah species other than that it is a mutation. And if that's the case, it should have a section here since they are essentially the same animal. IanUK 09:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour of separate articles. Maybe have a link from here. I have old encyclopaedia entries with old sightings of king cheetah, and *possible* differences from a normal one. interesting enough, and with a historical and cryptozoology based search for the king cheetah having been undertaken, i think a separate article is called for. 70.20.103.225 05:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC). Whoops that was me talking Pradiptaray 05:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay... The King Cheetah article is totally redundant now..... Any reason not to change to redirect?--Marhawkman 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I added this image of the King Cheetah to both the cheetah page and the king cheetah page. --Cody.Pope 14:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge completed, 4 mths 1 year old, same wording and info, nothing to copy over. Nashville Monkey 22:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds?

Any info on the sounds cheetahs make? All I saw was a mention of purring, but I think they can "yelp" too when in danger. (unsigned)

afaik they rather "chirp", at least it appeared to me like this at BBC's big cat diary. --84.62.133.232 03:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added some information on their sounds under "Vocalisations". Hope this helps! Ben 20:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also reffering to the sound clips, perhaps we should rework the text for the link to the Russian zoo webclip. The way it's worded it appears that the Cheetahs are speaking Russian. Sonalchagi 21:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

US FWS categorized Cheetahs as "Endangered"

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=A00S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amnesta (talk • contribs) 03:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Change?

The Introduction contains a contradiction that needs repairing. First it says the 'speed of Cheetah is unknown' then goes onto say how fast it is. This needs to be changed to "exact speeds are unknown" or/and "sources suggest it reaches up to 65mph". This page is protected so I couldn't make any changes myself.Bobbyfletch85 12:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references

I think there are some very good, noteworthy examples in this section, but there are also a handfull of trivial examples, in which acheetah is simply mentioned, or makes a brief appearance, but is otherwise not of significant importance to the subject which is said to make the reference. I'm going to try to take these out. Calgary 04:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

O'Brian Felidae research

didn't o'brian et al publish lots of genetic data on the family, including linking the cheetahs, pumas, and jaguaroundis as each others' closest relatives? i'm sure i could find it if i had to, but if anyone has it on hand.... Metanoid 01:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

O'Brien's book is entitled, "Tears of the Cheetah: And Other Tales from the Genetic Frontier" Wizzyliz 18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've cleaned up some vandalism. Please sign your comments, and try to continue discussions on the same subject matter (i.e. speed) underneath the same heading. Slow Graffiti 07:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

While this page has a 'Cultural References' miscellenia section, it would be nice if people could refrain from assuming vandalism and reverting edits just because they refer to something foreign to the editor. 81.86.150.114 03:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Climbing ability?

Is there some sort of source that can explain what they mean by a cheetah not being able to climb a tree?

Using just a standard web search for images results in many photographs of cheetahs in trees. (admitedly many are mislabeled) but some seem very much legit.. example1 example2

Is this some sort of thing like "Climbing a tree, must entail using claws to haul itself up" vs, being able to jump or run up a tree?

I personally have seen cheetah cubs of a few months old climbing a vertical tree in play. However they were unable to climb down again and had to jump. I recently asked our ranger/guide (at Shamwari Game Reserve, 4+ years exp) about lion/leopard/cheetah climbing. He explained to me that while all of those 3 cats can CLIMB UP a tree only a leopard can CLIMB DOWN thanks to a reverse/back claw. He also said that sometimes lions would climb a tree after a stored leopard kill and have sometimes been seen injuring themselves or even dying when they attempt to jump down.

Given this i would suggest the Cheetah article is changed somewhat as it suggests they CANNOT climb trees seems to be incorrect (see photo above). They are not well adapted to doing so and are not safe doing so but they CAN do limited climbing albeit needing to jump down. Some more information about reasons, is it to escape an attack? to get a good lookout from small trees? i have no information on this.

Futhermore the start of this article:

"The cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) is an atypical member of the cat family (Felidae) that is unique in its speed, while lacking climbing abilities." Perhaps better might be highlighting the rare fact that a cheetah cannot retract its claws, something along the line of: "The cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) is an atypical member of the cat family (Felidae) that is unique in its speed and not being able to retract its claws."

Bwfamily (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I very much agree with you, give me some time and i will work on it in my sandbox and ill let you know when i believe its updated and reflects true information. As a zoo keeper myself (with big cats as my area) i oftenly see our cheetahs in and out of the tree we have (in fact here in australia its the law that they must have a climbing tree). also yes i like your idea to change the opening sentance. i will work on it please feel free to help. Regards ZooPro (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I am a total Animal Planet junkie and I remember seeing something about this. Although I can't cite the episode, it was from the show Big Cat Diary.

Cheetahs can certainly climb trees, but compared to the other big cats they are pretty clumsy climbers. From memory, the show said that their climbing is much weaker because their build and musculature are long and streamlined, and their claws smaller and weaker. Their limbs just aren't short, stocky, and strong like the climbing ideal. So, their (relatively) weak muscles have to support their weight using smaller claws for traction, and their long thin limbs mean that their center of gravity is putting that much more strain on their muscles.

(All that is relative to the other big cats, of course. A cheetah could probably still mess me up and possibly eat me.  :)

In this particular episode, shots of Cheetahs climbing were juxtaposed with shots of Leopards climbing. Leopards are amazingly good climbers and I think they are the only cat that takes their kills into the trees to keep it safe.

Hope that helps! --Zearin (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Permission to change the photograph in the main panel

I'd like to change the Cheetah image in the main panel to Cheetah Kruger. Is that all right?

No response? Here's why I'd like to change the image

- Cheetah Kruger has a higher resolution

-It is sharper and the markings are seen more distinctly

Mukul2u (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the Cheetah_Kruger.jpg image; however, I was wondering if the edges could be cropped so that the image focuses more on the cheetah (thus, the cheetah would appear larger and the resolution better appreciated)Kpstewart (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Prehistoric Cheetahs

I read on a website that during the ice ages, there were giant cheetahs ranging from Europe into Central Asia. I was not sure if they survived in Mongolia or China or how recently. Please let me know if you find anything.After the Ice Age cheetahs even lived North America! :)

Acinonyx was present in Europe during the Ice Age (Pleistocene). Acinonyx pardinensis was 50% larger than a modern cheetah. I will intruduce something into the article. If I forget this, please remind me on my talk page.--Altaileopard (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No true cheetahs lived in North America. Only Miracinonyx, which was a puma relative. They are striking for their similarity to real cheetahs, but they aren't the same thing. 97.104.210.67 (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Acutally that's a current arguement that is going on. There is one species that's in question I can't think of it right now because i'm tired. The fossil record in North America is also incomplete.Mcelite (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation???

Why is the word "cheetah" capitalised throughout this page? It's not a proper noun, so it is incorrect to capitalise it. I haven't edited it myself, because I want to make sure that there isn't a good reason for it. 220.239.230.79 11:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BIRD for the logic of capitalizing the official common names of species. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no rationale for WP:BIRD having any bearing on capitalization for the cheetah article or any other mammal article.

Actual authoritative style guides, professional biology journals, reference guides on mammals, dictionaries, and print encyclopedias all overwhelmingly show cheetah is lowercase, as does WP:STYLE. Beyazid 00:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but I disagree, as do others. I've reverted it. Have a good day. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not just my input but is backed by citations of numerous authorities including MSW3 itself. Your disagreement needs to be based on more than your personal fondness for WP:BIRD. All the best. Beyazid 15:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have chosen to continuously revert whenever I edit the article to use lowercase for common names, but you haven't given any reason except WP:BIRD, which isn't applicable to this article. I guess maybe you really don't have any justification beyond that. I'm trying to have the article meet the consensus style of WP:MOS, and to match the overwhelming mass of scientific and popular literature which show cheetah is lowercase, and you shouldn't be reverting good faith edits and refusing to justify your reverts. Please see WP:REVERT. I will be happy to review any authoritative source you give that actually justifies your position, but until you are able to do so, please stop the reverts, it is disruptive and inappropriate. Beyazid 01:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on capitalization

Same poll as on Talk:Cougar, just so there's no question what the consensus is for this particular species. Opinions from anyone passing by would be much appreciated. You can indicate first and second choices if you like. If you're wondering why this is necessary, see here. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Option 1: "cheetah" in small letters except at the beginning of a sentence

(place vote here)

1. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Beyazid 03:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Pentagram16 00:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC) (but this is silly, read the freaking MOS!)
5. Hazy24 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Ben ^(talk) 01:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
7. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

8. Cheetah is not a proper noun! If cheetah is to be written with a captial letter then so must 'dog', 'impala', 'lion', etc. the word appears with a small letter in all scientific publications Kellymarne (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Option 2:"the Cheetah" capitalised when used to refer to the species as a whole

(place vote here)

Option 3: "Cheetah" always capitalised

1. UtherSRG (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
2. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 01:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
3. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
4. CheetahKeeper (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Poll Closed as per WP:CONS Result was not clear, however consensus would show that "cheetah" should be used except at the beginning of a sentence were "Cheetah" should be used. ZooPro (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

predatory nature

Are cheetahs known to attack and kill people? If they do, why? Are there any documented cases?

Dave 21:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not that I am aware of. Ben ^(talk) 02:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

on the topic of speed

Citation number four, which is provided as evidence that the cheetah can reach 70MPH, does not actually make this claim. Please read carefully - it is brief article (which, by the way, is hardly scholarly, and not at all worthy of being a wikipedia citation) about the errors made by the man who claimed that cheetahs can hit 70mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.189.53 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

this article states : The cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) is a vulnerable member of the cat family (Felidae), a poor climber that hunts by speed and stealth. As such, it is placed in its own genus, Acinonyx. It is the fastest of all land animals and can reach speeds between 112 km/h (70 mph) and 120 km/h (75 mph) [3] in short bursts up to 460 m (500 yards), and has the ability to accelerate from 0 to 110 km/h (68 mph) in three seconds, faster than most supercars.[4]

another article for the Springbok states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springbok_%28antelope%29 The Springbok (Afrikaans and Dutch: spring = jump; bok = antelope, deer, or goat) (Antidorcas marsupialis) is a small brown and white gazelle that stands about 75 cm high. The males can weigh up to 50 kg and the females up to 37 kg. They can reach running speeds of up to 83mph.

these two articles are in contradiction: the Springbok articles states that a Springbok can reach running speeds of 83mph, yet the Cheetah articles states that a Cheetah is the fastest land animal and can reach 70 - 75 mph which is slower than the Springbok

Lubi 41.242.163.192 07:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The cheetah is the fastest by far. In actually the reason it says between 70 and 75 mph is because we really don't know the MAX speed of the cheetah because of lack of research and indiviuals are different. Unfortunately, people where paying more attention to how it's body moves then clocking its speed everytime it went on a chase. There is even one recording of a cheetah clocking 80mph without any wind assistance which isn't impossible, but it's crazy fast. The springbok is not the fastest gazzle the thompson's gazzle is they clock at about 55 to 60 mph depending on the individual and situation it is in. Matter of fact if the cheetah were to go extinct only thing that would come close to catching one would be the african leopard which clocks at 50 mph, but the gazzles would eventually overpopulate. It would be a huge disaster from any view point. Mcelite (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

PLEASE EXPLAIN Were on earth did the numbers below come from they are incorrect, they seem to have been made up Angel310 Please Explain. ZooPro (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

dama gazelle: 56-75 mph/ 90 to 120 km/h

cheetah: 46-58 mph/ 75 to 94 km/h

springbok: 47-55 mph/ 75 to 88 km/h

impala and grant's gazelle: 47-56 mph/ 75 to 90 km/h.

ostrich : 46 mph/ 74 km/h

thomson's gazelle: 35-43 mph/ 56 to 69 km/h

wildebeest: 40 mph / 65 km/h

lionness and zebra : 35-40 mph/ 55 to 64 km/h

leopard: 36 mph/ 58 km/h

tiger: 30 mph / 48 km/h

lion: 25-30 mph/ 40 to 48 km/h Angel310 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel310 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

those speeds are farfetched... The only acceptable speed for acinonyx jubatus is within 60-66 miles per hour since the fastest RECORDED speed was clocked and is within that range. But this speed can actually be considered as an extreme even by cheetah standards as MOST recorded speed very rarely exceed 60 mph, 55mph being the top speed for most individuals. The speed of the Dama gazelle was never recorded as virtually no studies of the animals speed exist as a result in part of its rarity. Springboks are considered as the fastest prey animal of the cheetah but they WERE NEVER CLOCKED AT 55 MPH, and writing so would be a total assumption, something not accepted in wikipedia. They are not faster than antilocapra americana which was clocked at 55mph. Impalas and grants gazelle when not stotting can sprint at speeds of up to 46mph, tommies being able to go a little faster due in part to its unique stride. the "56mph" is as untrue as a 3 feet tall loxodonta africana. Ostriches were accurately clocked at 45mph, and them being able to surpass this record speed is entirely plausible. Lions are 32-36mph runners while wildebeests being able to sprint at 43mph are slightly faster than the 40mph zebras. Lions are able to catch this dactyls because both the zebra and the gnu are slower than the lion in terms of acceleration. Leopards are actually the second fastest feline in africa, capable of bursting at 40 mph. This is one reason of them being to easily subdue some faster antelopes; their acceleration is also superb. One funny thing about the tiger is that virtually all medium to large sized hoofed mammals that serves it as prey are actually faster than the predator itself. What it lacks in speed it makes up for cunning and superb camouflage and stealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.198.161 (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Paw

I think it should be added in the description part that cheetahs have bigger hind paws than fore paws(Unlike most animals) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoundBlast (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Five subspecies or six?

The article makes two separate claims. Someone who is more knowledgeable than me about cheetahs needs to correct one of them. Funnyhat (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Better now? - UtherSRG (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Woolly cheetahs

Where were the specimens taken from? Tomer^talk 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of that and deleted the whole section. If someone gives a proper reference, we can place it back.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Zoological Society of London purchased a young live male aberrant cheetah from a Mr Arthur Mosenthal. The cheetah originated from the Beaufort West area in South Africa and lived in the Zoological Gardens for many years (Sclater 1877), the cat had unusually long hair with shorter stouter legs that normal cheetahs and lacked tear lines. This cheetah was referred to as the ‘woolly cheetah’ and the skin is now housed in the British Museum. (Skinner and Smithers 1990 The mammals of the Southern African sub-region Pp. 392) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellymarne (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheetahs' enemies

Where is the section that talks about the cheetah's enemie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.5.32 (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The cheetah has no enemies. He's just cool like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.5.69 (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, their cubs are sometimes eaen by lions, and their prey is often stolen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingedcheetah (talk • contribs) 14:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There are only two subspecies of cheetah

The Encyclopedia of Mammals (new edition, fully updated), edited by David W. Macdonald (Oxford University Press, 2006), page 641, lists only two subspecies of cheetah. This is also backed up by the websites http://www.bigcats.com/cheetahsworkshop.php?C=1 and http://www.bigcats.com/page1018755516.mv . This is a big job to change the Cheetah article - someone with more time and Wikipedia knowledge than me!

Deanmurley (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition, the IUCN, and other current sources still list more than two subspecies. The taxonomy of cheetah subspecies has not yet been definitively determined, and research in this area is ongoing. The currect wording in the Subspecies section is misleading and far too strongly worded. Kaldari (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've revised the wording accordingly. Hopefully once more genetic studies are done, we will be able to list the subspecies more definitively. Kaldari (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As another example, an article from this week's New Scientist magazine lists hecki as a distinct subspecies.[1] Kaldari (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

they are the fastest cat in this plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.248.78 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheetah life!

  Hi, Im Annie and Im in class right now doing boring class work on mammals! omg its soooooooo boring i will add more later  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.165.70.108 (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 

English range map

Can we have a range map in English, please? I don't even know what the language in the current legend is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.7.237 (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think its in french. The funny thing is that the German, Italian and Spanish articles all use the same map but in English, so it should be easy to change.--Lordrichie (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheetah and dog similitaries

Although the Cheetah is considered as a feline, which I agree with, there should be a section that mentions the similarities with dogs. Things like claws, teeth, behavior, skull, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.24.59 (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Coalitions

Males are very sociable and will group together for life, usually with their brothers in the same litter; although if a cub is the only male in the litter then two or three lone males may group up, or a lone male may join an existing group. These groups are called coalitions. In one Serengeti study by Caro and Collins (1987), 41% of the adult males were solitary, 40% lived in pairs and 19% lived in trios.[15]

So, according to this description, virtually all of the cheetahs live either alone, or in coalitions of two or three members. Aren't these figures wrong? From what I know, there are a considerable number of coalitions which go up to four, five, six, or more members. Can somebody confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.7.42 (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article

The following were subsections of the section "Re-Wilding project in India". While the opinions and arguments make sense, they are not attributed to a source, and Wikipedia can't express opinions and analyses of its own (see WP:V and WP:NOR).--Anonymous44 (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Opinions can't be used only statements from a reliable source.Mcelite (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The ill effects of this project

Cheetahs have been extinct in India for over a century now and it is too late for us to think about their re-wilding. Project tiger is still on its path of struggle and any other interferences would seriously disturb our nature cycle. If a new predatory species is introduced in the Indian jungles, then, there would be an imbalance in the food chain, where herbivorous species will face serious decline in their population, since the number of predatory species is more. The Royal Bengal Tiger population in India is less which is a matter of concern. If we do not concentrate more on the tiger, probably, the next generation would be able to see them only in books. There is also a fact that the Cheetah may not adapt to the dense jungles of India, since it is a fast running mammal and needs open space or savannah to breed and hunting. Besides the cheetah wont find the desired and sufficient pray to feed apon. We still need to study the cheetah's diet.

Efforts to be made

The Indian jungles are not too large to accomodate a cluster of predatory species. Hence if a cheetah has to be introduced, the Indian jungles should be widened and afforestation programs should be increased. Once we acquire our aim of covering the Indian land with an average of 45% of forested land, then we can consider introducing the cheetah. And it would not be possible to introduce the cheetah alone, since there will be an imbalance in the food chain. If a cheetah has to be introduced, then naturally, a herbivorous species should also be introduced to balance the food chain. But all this will happen only when the extent of Indian jungles will increase. This project is still to begin and has not been undertaken by the government yet, but is planned. The government is reconsidering apon the re-wilding issue.

New article for 'Reintroduction of Cheetah in India'

I have created a new article on this subject. It is quite large involving Cheetah diplomacy with Iran, options of buying from South Africa etc etc. So, all of this cannot be accommodated in a single section. Therefore, I have created a new article Cheetah Reintroduction in India. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am all for the new article seems like you have done a great job, it should be kept as a new article and NOT merged, as it has nothing to do with the Cheetah as a animal but rather as a project and a notable project at that. ZooPro (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the new article is great and there is not need to merge the contents of that article into the Cheetah article. I will remove the merge proposal tag Kpstewart (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Tail as a "rudder"

The article says cheetahs use their tails like rudders. Tails may help with turning, but it seems more likely to me that they are helpful in maintaining balance, not in creating laterally asymmetrical drag. There is no citation to the claim about tails as rudders -- could someone familiar with the topic or the sources clarify what cheetah tails are all about? Yothgoboufnir (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Leave it with me and i will work on it. You are correct though. ZooPro (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Pop Culture Addition

In the mid 90s there was a Transformers TV show called Beast Wars. One of the characters was named Cheetor which when transformed became a cheetah. I think this deserves a spot in the Pop Culture section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.80.30 (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Speed

Please, for the love of whatever you consider holy, READ. THE. PAPERS. Do not just revert to the prior claims because it's "what you've heard" or any other such nonsense. If anyone needs them, I can supply the pdfs of the papers - which explicitly state that the prior speeds are mis-measurements and highly unreliable. Last I checked, this was not "Rumor-pedia" where we stuff in anything anyone heard from their third cousin's friend's former roomate's wife. If you want to raise the speed, add a new source, because the current ones do NOT support any speeds higher than those currently listed. And frankly, I'm going to check the acceleration speed against the scientific literature, because the current source is far from reliable. Mokele (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to believe that a creature with a maximum speed of 103kph can accelerate to 110kph. The top speed is stated differently in the lead and the body of the article, as well. Might I suggest that you make the figures credible before shouting at anyone? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Frankly, I'm inclined to delete the whole acceleration section until a *reputable* source can be put forth, but I'll leave it for now. Mokele (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've reverted it back to stating the actual speeds capable of the cheetah. I used this source because it actually goes into detail about the physiology of the cheetah that allows it to reach speeds between 70 and 75mph. To use Sharp as a source over Hilderbrand's would not be sufficient. Sharp just states what he proposes and does not go over the depth of the cheetah's physiology. Also there are younger sources that state even faster times of 70mph +. Just because a source is younger doesn't make it accurate. I've personally witnessed cheetahs going 73mph. To say a cheetah's maximum is 64mph is honestly a joke..that's the time of a cheetah that's out of shape and has never left an animal exhibit. There really hasn't been any other actual studies solely focused on cheetah speed only writers putting down what they've seen. That's why using the source from the Journal of Mammalogy is a better choice.Mcelite (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You've seen it? Then whip up a paper and send it to Journal of Mammalogy or somewhere. Until it's in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, it doesn't count. How can I evaluate your claim? I don't know the method, instruments, circumstances, etc under which the measurements were made. 'That's why we have scientific publications, so we don't have resort to vague, nebulous claims of little more than 'I saw it', especially for a measure historically known to be prone to error and exaggeration. Hildebrand suggests that a higher top speed may be possible, but does not document the actual occurrence. The *actual* limits of top speed include factors not addressed by Hildebrand, including and most importantly muscle twitch properties. But in the end, these are just estimates, and as several disasters in the dinosaur literature clearly show, we're a long, long way from being able to look at morphology and correctly predict speed. In short: Estimates are not observations, and observations not published in the peer-review literature are unreliable and cannot be evaluated. Provide a valid source of actual, observed, published speed, or stop reverting. Mokele (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok you contradict yourself Journal of Mammalogy is a peer-reviewed scientific literature. Sharp doesn't even test it out or do anything on the actual physiology and 64mph as top speed is a joke for a cheetah. Also it's not so simple to just write something and send it in. Alot goes into deteremining maximum speed possible because individuals vary, health, size, sex, age, etc and sadly Hildebrand is the only one as old as the source is to actually go into the physiology. Also yes I've seen it myself few years ago a cheetah clearing 70mph which isn't hard to believe. Journal of Zoology doesn't trump the Journal of Mammalogy which to me seems like what you are saying. I'm reverting it because 1. In all honesty 64mph is low realisticly, Sharp doesn't go into the physiology in depth of the possible maximum speed he states a speed based on observation, 3. a younger source than Sharp's states 68mph but doesn't go into its physiology as well.Mcelite (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would draw your attention the International Cheetah Studbook, in 2007 it conducted a Global experiment requesting institutions to submit there recorded speeds of any cheetahs they have tested. It was an overwhelming response by the zoo community with the average speed for 800m being around 115 - 120 km/h, Dr Laurie Marker who is considered by nearly every zoo body in the world to be the Jane Goodall of Cheetahs is the Studbook Keeper and having worked with her and participated in the experiment i believe the figures. In order to preserve WP:NPOV i will not use my personal observence of 3 cheetahs reaching over 100km/h in any change however i hardly need to as there is evidence from a very reliable source (the international studbook) so i find it hard to believe that 3000 institutions have given false speeds. regards ZooPro 01:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice, but I'm looking at the PDF of the 2007 studbook right now, and there's nothing in it about speed or anything else beyond normal studbook stuff. I'll happily consider that a good source (assuming the methodology is sufficient) if you can actually find the version that has it in. Also, you severely misunderstood my prior comments - it's not about which journal is "better", it's about who had the highest observed speed between the two. Neither deals with physiology, but "suggested" speeds of any sort are always to be viewed as mere hypotheses awaiting confirmation. And trust me, I'm *more* than aware of what it takes to determine maximal speed. My main point is, and has ALWAYS been, that we should not extrapolate or accept hypothesized numbers, but constrain ourselves to actual, verified measurements. Of those papers, the 103 km/h was the highest actual measurement. If you can find that studbook reference and determine an actual number, then that will be referenced in the page, but I'm not seeing anything. Mokele (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You will have to contact Dr Marker as i was not aware it wasn't released with the public version i myself have an institutional copy that covers far more then the public studbook (i was not aware of the deviation between the two). I will email Dr Marker myself aswell and ask for her input. ZooPro 03:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

King Cheetah

Somewhere in that section it talks about the gene being rare because it's recessive. That's not true, dominant genes are not more 'common' than recessive genes.

That depends on the genetics of the population. In the case of the cheetah that coat pattern is a recessive trait. That so far has shown to have no negative effects on the cheetah's ability to survive.Mcelite (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mcelite. Had i paid attention i would have answered this a while ago however it was unsigned so i didnt know when it was posted. ZooPro 12:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Zoo

Please consider helping to improve not only this article but all the articles under WikiProject Zoos WP:ZOO Scope. We are in desperate need of members. ZooPro 08:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Kill rate?

The cheetah success rate as cited in reference 8 is incorrect. I read the article and it makes no mention of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunTzuWarmaster (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

They do have a 100% success rate with Thompson Gazelle fawns.--Snowleopard100 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that? Mokele (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There would be no citation as its dead wrong. Cheetahs have a 50% kill rate of most animals including Gazelle, I have seen footage of a gazelle fawn escaping from a cheetah and it lived to tell the tale. ZooPro 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind putting the link on here? Was it a adult? Many sites like http://www.pictures-of-cats.org/what-do-cheetahs-eat.html and books say they have a 100% rate with gazelle fawns. I will be checking a couple books for more information. Will be getting back soon.--Snowleopard100 (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Its like banging my head against a brick wall. So I will try and put it as blunt as possibe. The website u gave is CRAP, is stolen from alot of different articles and the information misinterpreted. You would have to be the stupidist person on earth to believe any animal has a 100% kill rate of anything. As for you giving other editors wrong information about wikipedia policy and guidelines i suggest you stop as you are misleading editors. You clearly have NO knowledge of anything to do with felines or carnivores at all and merely think they are cute and cuddly. This is an encyclopedia not a childrens book. ZooPro 12:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to further my point that website references wikipedia; that itself is unreliable unless referenced (still couldnt find the information in the article anyway). It also contradicts itself multiple times, prob written by a cat mad idiot who knows nothing about the animal itself other then "its fast and has spots' ZooPro 12:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would consider the cheetah outreach as good information.

http://www.cheetahoutreach.com/pdf/CheetahInformation.pdf

Thanks--Snowleopard100 (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a peer-reviewed scientific publication, therefore is useless. Mokele (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, and I agree with you. The only problem is getting information that is peer-reviewed.--Snowleopard100 (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hunting success rate is definitely 50%. A great source of information that includes peer reviewed publications is the Cheetah Conservaation Fund web site. About the Cheetah section includes a virtual tour that covers the cheetah's history, biology, ecology and conservation efforts. The section What We Do covers some of the work being done on behalf of the wild cheetah, and a library of resources with scientific publications. Thanks! Crocsetal (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Speed

I do not speak well English and I have no references others than me, but in the link that in posted Snowleopard100 the 50 mph speed for the small thomson's gazelle is overestimated in reality she turns around seen 50-60 mph and 70 mph of the cheetah

Concerning the fastest of African gazelles, on the other hand the speed of springboks, Grant's gazelle is good of 60-70 mph in reality, it runs faster than the thomson because they are bigger on legs and so high and fast that the cheetah and its gazelles / antelopes make of grants jumps and are very good also in long-distance race, it is reference athlets for the ferverts of athletics.

The gazelles of thomson runs to the same speed as the leopard. But it is especially the female cheetah which hunts her, this small gazelle makes exactly zigzags very fast masi in a straight line it is overtaken by the cheetah, nevertheless thommy can run on a distance longer than cheetahs--Angel310 (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheetahs have over sized lungs so they can run long distances at 70 miles per hour without running out of breath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.146.226 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm I will do some digging before replyin to this comment. ZooPro 14:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay I cannot understand most of what your saying as it does not make sense, you contradict yourself a number of times in your comment, I will follow suit with the advice left on your talk page and ask you to please stick to editing your native language, please dont edit the page unless it is in complete and fully understandable english and you provide legitimate sources. ZooPro 14:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pronghorn Antelope have a top speed of around 80 mph (130 km/h) [2] ! It is the fastest antelope Pronghorn, moreover it is bigger tall at the shoulder than the cheetah contrary to the Thomson gazelle, it is Pronghorn which affects the fastest record of the ground mammals to 80 mph (130 km/h), and a beautiful reference to prove it to you. The cheetah does not exceed 75 mph 120 km/h, it is enough to compare their measurements, to see that she is better.

Springboks and Impalas are also recognized for their extraordinary jumps.--85.170.228.86 (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the speed, we have multiple citations from reliable sources topping out at 62 mph. The reference pointed to here is a state web site (not a scientific book or site), and it's hard to justify changing the speed based on this single statement. It is not the fastest antelope, as it is not a true antelope. It is generally cited as the second fastest land mammal -- certainly making it the fastest prey species. I see no reason to change the Cheetah article to "second fastest" unless there is a lot more scientific consensus around the speed of both species. Don Lammers (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am Jesus-Christ, I know all the same that she animal is the fastest, it is my speciality, but you are right, Pronghorn is an antelope has part. In Africa it is Grant's gazelles, Sommering's gazelles and Springbok South Africa which run so fast as the cheetah moreover he often misses his animals when they are in good phisique condition.

Groung mammals top speed record:

• Pronghorn antelope (American): 40 mph (60 km/h) on 8 kilometers, 63 mph (103 km/h) on average a distance of 3000 meters, with the top speed 80 mph (130 km/h) a short distance 600 meters

• Grant's & Soemmering's gazelle: 58 mph (93 km/h) on average a distance of 2500 meters, with the top speed 75 mph (120 km/h) a short distance 500 meters

• Cheetah: 30 mph (50 km/h) on 1 kilometers, 58 mph (93 km/h) on average a distance of 450 meters, with the top speed 75 mph (120 km/h) a short distance 80 meters

• Springbok gazelle: 30 mph (50 km/h) on 6 kilometers, 55 mph (88 km/h) on average a distance of 2500 meters, with the top speed 71 mph (115 km/h) a short distance 500 meters

• Blackbuck antelope (India): 52 mph (83 km/h) on average a distance of 2500 meters, with the top speed 69 mph (110 km/h) a short distance 450 meters

• Rhim gazelle: 45 mph (73 km/h) on average of 2000 meters, with the top speed 62 mph (100 km/h) a short distance 400 meters

• Thomson's gazelle & Dorcas gazelle: 25 mph (40 km/h) on 5 kilometers, 42 mph (67 km/h) on average a distance of 2000 meters, with the top speed 58 mph (94 km/h) a short distance 400 meters

• Impala: 36 mph (58 km/h) on average a distance of 2000 meters, with the top speed 53 mph (85 km/h) a short distance 400 meters

The predators attack only preys, weak, young, hurt, patient, old, female in gestation and most of the time he fails in front of antelopes in good phisique condition, and herbivores are better than them.

Impala is less fast than the other gazelles, impala he very agile with his spectacular jumps. For example the Thomson's gazelle can easily escape a cheetah, because it makes zig-zags faster than the cheetah. The impala does not live to him in plain and runs around trees and bushes, thus not very practical for the cheetah to pursue it furthermore she makes great air jumps and also makes zig-zags fast, in spite of she runs less faster than Thomson gazelle.

The impala has the same phisical measurement that Grant's gazelles, springboks... but it is too much developed the muscle, its running and less fast. Needs to say that genus gazelles, even the small as the Thomson and Dorcas are extremely fast. In term of evolution are the best herbivores and the cheetah is the best carnivore hurriedly of running.

Pronghorn is an antelope of a new genus, more recent than the African with measurements except standards, which exceeds all other mammals in the running. She does not meet the cheetah in the nature, the adults in good phisiques conditions have no predator in North America. There is a beautiful collection of antelopes worldwide so fast as the cheetah.--Angel310 (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheetah (Satan) run reality record speed:

• The females cheetah on average 67 to 82 km/h (42-51 mph) a distance of on 300-350 meters, with the top speed 94 to 109 km/h (58-68 mph) a very short distance 50 meters, according to the individuals.
• The best males average 78 to 93 km/h (48-58 mph) a distance of 400-450 meters - with the peak 105 to 120 km/h (65-75 mph) 75 meters, according to the individuals.--Angel310 (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

None of the above is cited. Where do you get this information (if it's from the same state site as above, then I have already answered to the issues)? Not even Jesus Christ is allowed to post original research on WikiPedia (see WP:OR).

Donlammers I can only say that the fastest I've seen in person is 73mph. I work with and do research on Cheetahs and in reality a full out study of the cheetah's maximum speed hasn't been done. As popular as the cheetah is, we actually don't know the true maximum speed of a cheetah...so to say a cheetah let's say hitting 80mph isn't exactly crazy. However, at the same time a scientific study has never been done to conclude the actual maximum speed. It will take a lot of work to get the actual results done. However, this is quite an interesting question that still hasn't been truly answered.Mcelite (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not quote 80 mph for the cheetah, read again I, but 75 mph at most, and it is a scientific value, because she corresponds as high as the best male, is 94 cms in height what gives a 94 km/h average speed onto 450 meters with a peak in 120 km/h (75 mph) on 75 meters. It is the real record of the sort, but however females cheetahs are less fast of made than they are smaller.

It is the male antilocapre pronghorn (103 cms tall the shoulder), that scientifically can indeed reach 130 km/h (80 mph).--Angel310 (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Besides the size the weight is a criterion of the most important in athletics for the speed records, that is why gazelles and cheetahs are faster than the zebras and the lions. Gazelles and cheetahs are animals which we be create for the running, to be the best in this category, while a zebra or a lion in spite of they are also very fast are especially very strong and very powerful.

I like cheetahs, I am at the same time the good and the evil contrary to Satan who is only the evil, I am just anxious to put back things to their place that's it.--Angel310 (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the opening paragraph should be slightly reworded "The cheetah can run faster than any other land animal— as fast as 112 to 120 km/h (70 to 75 mph)" and gives citations 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 at that point. I went through all citations to find the quoted speeds. 3 = 64.9mph, 5 = 63mph, 6 = 62mph, 7 = 61mph and 8 = 65mph. Citation 4 had reference to a claim from an animal "show" that claimed over 70mph but the citation itself said this was unreliable. So of all the other citations with reliabe claims we have 62-65mph, not the 70-75mph that the citations appear to refer to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.213.42 (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

According to a cheetah was measured at 98 km/h over 100 metres in this video. I think the article needs to be corrected, the present speed listed has no source. — Edit by User:Avi8tor (13:37, 20 January 2018)

References

Cheetahs

[they are endangerd animals] www.buzle.asiatic cheetahs.co.uk

And it also says it on the page. May I ask why you are bringing it up?--Snowleopard100 (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

They are endangered because people poach them and use their spotty skin as coats and handbags eg. They also have lost their habitat which means not many prey to eat leading to starvation. Another thing is that the Live stock farmers have their live stock eaten by the Cheetahs and then tend to shoot at them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.142.33 (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory material

Some info directly contradicts itself in the re-wilding in India section:

"...cheetahs in India became extinct before the twentieth century ... cheetahs have been extinct in India since the 1940s." Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not extinct but extirpated. The Asiatic cheetah still does have numbers. I'll look into it.Mcelite (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheetahs went extinct in India in the 1940s. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"India: Extinct in 1952. Last known cheetah found in Hyderadad in 1951 and Chitoor in 1952. Indians were importing cheetahs from Africa to be used as hunting leopards in 1929 due to the rarity of local cheetahs. There has been talk of reintroducing cheetah back to India, but availability of prey species and unsuitable habitat are limiting factors. A captive breeding effort may be launched." Source: Marker, L. Aspects of Namibian Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) Biology, Ecology and Conservation Strategies. PhD. Thesis, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford. 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocsetal (talk • contribs) 19:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Another contradiction: the article says there is very little genetic variation, but then says there are six subspecies. How can this be right?Manormadman (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Cheetah cub close-up edit2.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cheetah cub close-up edit2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 8, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-10-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 23:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A close-up view of a cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) cub. Unlike some other cats, the cheetah is born with its characteristic spots, as well as a downy underlying fur on their necks extending to mid-back, which gives the cub the appearance of the Honey Badger, to scare away potential aggressors. Despite this, up to 90% of cheetah cubs are killed by predators in the early weeks of life. Healthy adult cheetahs have few predators because of their speed.Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim