Talk:Ocelot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

need a lot of information on the ocelots physical description, habitat, food, defence and protection, care of the young and the reasons why they are endangered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.58.247 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ocelot kitten picture?

I actually think that "kitten" is an adult Margay. It can be very difficult to tell the difference though. Ocicat 07:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture was originally uploaded by wikibooks:User:John Burkitt, who works at Tiger Touch, but you can always ask him to confirm at his talk page. — Laura Scudder ☎ 08:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded new picture of confirmed adult ocelot. Darthbob100 20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

USA or not?

Is the ocelot found in the USA, even rarely, or not? The article seems inconsistent.

The ocelot is usually found in the rain forests of South America, but curiously, it also inhabits brush land as far north as Texas, in the United States. The ocelot's range in the United States is Southern Oklahoma, sw Arkansas, w Louisiana, Texas, and extreme se Arizona. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the populations of ocelot in the United States are endangered, but populations elsewhere, to the best of my knowledge, are endangered as well due to over collection for pelts and the pet trade. The National Audubon Society's Field Guide to North American Mammals recommends The Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, along the Rio Grande, as the best opportunity to spot wild ocelots in the U.S., but ocelots also occur in many zoos nationwide, including the one at which I work. If you have any more questions, feel free to post them on my talk page.: The name of the animal derives from Nahuatl ocelotl. It also comes from the Mexican Aztec word tlalocelot. Morganismysheltie 00:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Genus

I've also seen the ocelot referred to as Felis pardalis rather than Leopardus pardalis. Is this an obsolete name, or do biologists disagree on its classification, or what? --Ptcamn 12:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

At one time, most if not all of the "small cats" were placed in Felis. Retaining the previous name is a habit of those who don't care about the modern understanding of the relationships. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Resemblence

Alright. Should it be mentioned that the ocelot resembles a jaguar more or a clouded leopard. I decided to write about this first instead of possibly causing an edit war. Or should it be both animals since this argument could continue on.Mcelite (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

Perhaps both would be appropriate. Either way, we don't need to say it twice. I've removed the duplicate. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well ok both it is then.Mcelite (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

Biting the Breast that Feeds

Are there any sources that back up that claim that the young eat their own mother when she is drained of breastmilk? I am not finding anything that indicates as such on a few searches on the internet in regards to ocelot behavoir, so I am a bit skeptical about this. - Ccelizic (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Texas Ocelot range map (known historical range/habitat)

http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/tmot1/images/dmap258.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.138.68 (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Endangered Species

The Ocelot is subjected to be vulnerable instead of least concern as of this official endangered species site: http://www.earthsendangered.com/profile.asp?ID=9&sp=734 I have switched the Endangered from LC to VU because according to the site, it is endangered to only USA (Arizona, Texas) to Central and South America and if you read the page you'll see that it is more endangered than it was last listed. So I put it to VU since it will suffice and support the endangered species, The Ocelot was put on the endangered list since March 28, 1972. --Kagemaru the Ninja of the Shadows (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Name in Brazil

I've never heard the ocelot called "Jaguarete" in Brazil. I guess this is a name used in Spanish speaking Latin America. The Brazilian name is "Jaguatirica". In Aurelio's brazillian dictionary, "jaguaretê" is said to be the word for Jaguar in Tupi language. 152.92.143.21 (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Size

This article would be more helpful if it indicated, by comparison, how big the ocelot is, i.e. is it a big leopard or a small leopard? Is it bigger than your average house cat? Is it known to attack humans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.98.24 (talk • contribs)

Try reading the article. the information you seek is there.... - UtherSRG (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What does it usually weigh at birth? And after 6 months? After1 year? 216.99.201.102 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pets

I've heard of people keeping them as pets, some secretly. Is it legal to keep them as pets? If not, will it be okey if they are removed from the endangered list in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's ilegall to keep Ocelots as pets, even if they were once kept. It's also illegall to import them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.184.182 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why there is a bit on the band Phish's song Ocelot in the pet section, I can only vaguely fathom. Phisheads are weirdos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.245.49 (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sound ocelot makes

If I want to note what sound an ocelot makes, would that go under the "Behavior" header? Plus I don't know what to call it; it's far different from a lion's or tiger's roar. [1] Roxtar 23:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dalí's ocelot Babou

Does anyone know if Babou was male or female? I would prefer to refer to Babou as "him" or "her" rather than "it". --N-k (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Baboú was a male.

Capitalisation

These edits of mine which changed "Ocelot" to "ocelot" in sentences like "While the Ocelot is well equipped for an arboreal lifestyle" were reverted by User:UtherSRG with the comment (on my talk page):

Please don't change caps

Several Wikiprojects endorse using caps for species common names. See WP:BIRD for the rationale.

I've asked for clarification on the bird project talk page and received this reply:

Yes, FWIW the edits you made were entirely along bird SOP. HBW uses it so I guess HMW would use it too.

I'm pretty sure that this sort of capitalisation isn't standard English and that the intent of the policy has been misread. What do other people think? — ciphergoth 08:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the capitalization seems totally wrong. Look at the page for "jaguar", it's never capitalized.

The capitalization is wrong. Memahb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

The birds project is completely separate and has a special reason (a reference book). In normal English, animal names are not capitalized unless there is a proper noun (person's name, geographical name, etc.) involved such as the Japanese macaque. I decapitalized this article other day and someone else came by and changed them back. So far, it appears that the vote is to decapitalize. Is there anyone who wants the capitals and if so, what is your reason? Wakablogger2 (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the person who recapitalized was UtherSRG. S/he hasn't left any feedback here about the topic. Wakablogger2 (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given my opinion many times on many talk pages. I am very strongly on the side of capitalizing species' common names. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm the "someone else" who recapitalized it, and I'm with Uther here. This "discussion" is old, old, old, and a consensus (of sorts) was reached - at least as regards the Felidae articles - on another talk page (which? don't remember). Let's drop this and get about the job of improving the many cat articles that still need work. --Seduisant (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What are the reasons for capitalizing mammal names? Are there newspapers, books, journals or other reliable sources that use such practices? Other reasons for doing so? I personally never capitalize words such as "cat," "bear," "lion," "dog" or "deer" and think capitalizing them results in poor-looking copy. I'm open to finding out why they should be capitalized, however. Also, what are the reasons for capitalizing Spanish and Portuguese names for the ocelot. Wakablogger2 (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow suprise suprise another capital debate, I swear this is all we ever discuss. ZooPro 04:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No evidence that "ocelot" is normally capitalized has been provided, and no reasons have been offered for doing so. I will wait three more days and then proceed with decapitalization if nobody provides such evidence or reasons. Wakablogger2 (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You will not. We have given explanation. You have refused it. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No reasons have yet been provided. We must take into account standard/common usage and style. Please provide references that demonstrate your preferred capitalization scheme. Wakablogger2 (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BIRD provides some of what you seek. More is found in various discussions on the subject of capitalization. The arguments have been had and made. The decision was already made. Do not undo the capitalization. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The bird project has special rules based on a particular reference book they use. That does not apply here. Without references, this sort of capitalization scheme is not appropriate. As per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalisation_of_common_names_of_species: 'In general, common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in sentence case — for example, "oak" or "lion". This means names are written in lower case except for proper nouns or words that start a sentence. Examples: "Black bears eat white suckers and blueberries" or "The Roosevelt elk is a subspecies of Cervus canadensis."' Wakablogger2 (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, WP:BIRD gives more than just "'cos this book said to." Is that a bear that happens to be black, or is it an American Black Bear in your example. The naming convention also states, "each WikiProject can decide on its own rules for capitalisation". The mammal project has failed to make a stance one way or the other. The status quo is to not change capitalization. I'm telling you again: all of your arguments have been made before. The decision has been made. Do not change the capitalization of this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the purpose of capitalizing "black." It is because it is at the beginning of the sentence ("or words that start a sentence"). Because the mammal project has not made a decision to the contrary of this policy, the __decision to not capitalize__ stands. Unless there is further discussion, this article needs to be decapitalized. (I would like to note that UtherSRG's continued use of imperatives is not appropriate in a discussion or to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.) Wakablogger2 (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for stumbling into the article this afternoon and changing those caps. I didn't mean to fan any flames. It never occured to me that there might be a debate raging on the talk page about it; I've just never seen it done before — having an initial cap at every single use. For a newbie to the controversy like me: could a proponent of having the caps explain why they are correct? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations from Google Books (four of five with small case)

• One of the most attractive members of the cat family, the ocelot's short-haired coat is sandy, grayish yellow or deep, warm brown in color, blotched with large brown, black-bordered rosettes and spots. [[2]]. Volume 9 of The International Wildlife Encyclopedia by Maurice Burton, Robert Burton. Page 1776. Marshall Cavendish, 2002
• People pay money for ocelot furs. They use the furs to make coats and other clothing. Every ocelot has different fur markings. [[3]]. Ocelots by Sam Dollar, Jane Moates. Page 27. Heinemann, 2005
• Their habitat may be very similar to that of the Ocelot, though sightings and information from Meico indicate that the Jaguarundi may be more tolerant of open areas than the Ocelot. [[4]]. Endangered and threatened animals of Texas: their life history and management by Linda Campbell. Page 11. University of Texas Press, 1995
• Where are you, my younger brother, my wood, ocelot, ocelot? [[5]]. Music in Latin America and the Caribbean: an encyclopedic history, Volume 1 by Malena Kuss. Page 92. University of Texas Press, 2004
• Meet a bottlenose dolphin, an ocelot, a Bengal tiger, even a Komodo dragon in this fun and fact-packed new series that introduces readers to some of the wildest and most fascinating animals in the world. [[6]]. Ocelot by Edana Eckart. Overview. Children's Press, 2004

Wakablogger2 (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference books: The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, Encyclopedia Americana (all online), and the American Heritage Dictionary (ed 4) (print) all have lower case, even though each uses capitals for such entries as Washington. Wakablogger2 (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Asking again: Can either of the proponents of the caps explain to me why they're right, when they are contrary to accepted English usage? They sure make the page look amateurish, er, Amateurish. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of reasons:

1. The phrase "in Australia there are many Common Starlings" indicates a large number of Sturnus vulgaris. In contrast, the phrase "in Australia there are many common starlings" indicates several different types of starling. The same problem happens with the names of many mammal species as well. Capitalizing the common name solves this problem.
2. If we were to utilize only the scientific name, the tense and sense of the subject is one of singular and proper. The use of the common name should also have the sense and tense of singular and proper. Ie. "While similar in appearance to Leopardus tigrinus, which inhabits the same region, Leopardus pardalis is larger." -> "While similar in appearance to the Oncilla, which inhabits the same region, the Ocelot is larger." vice "While similar in appearance to Oncillas, which inhabit the same region, Ocelots are larger."
3. See this article.
4. See this discussion.

The discussions have been had before. Over and over. And over again. Both camps are well entrenched. Both camps have good evidence on their sides. The closest we have to an agreement is to not change articles in either direction. The only overriding factor is if a WikiProject itself chooses one particular style. Can we please move along. Again? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. As I said, this is all new to me; I would never have guessed there was such a longstanding brouhaha about this issue. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is in contradiction to the policy at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalisation_of_common_names_of_species as quoted above. I therefore vote to move ahead with the majority of participants here and decapitalize. Wakablogger2 (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the caps look dopey, I mean, Dopey. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary of this discussion:

1. There are four people in favor of decapitalization, two opposed.
2. The BP has been cited as a reason for keeping the capitalization, but the mammal page clearly states that not capitalizing is the policy for mammals.
3. Citations have been provided showing that ocelot is not typically capitalized in reference books or other works.
4. Ambiguity has been provided as a reason for not capitalizing, though only a bird example is given.
5. A grammatical inconsistency (?) has been cited as a reason for keeping capitalization (though I personally don't follow the significance)

Consistent with the policy on the mammal page, I will decapitalize in the next day or two unless there are other points to be discussed. Wakablogger2 (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And I will recapitalize. You have not correctly stated that the status quo is to keep articles as is. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the capitalized stance does not fit with the mammal page standards. I am open to a reason for going outside those standards, but nothing has been offered yet. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and no person owns an article. I have no problem with calling in an administrator for uncooperative editing. Wakablogger2 (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to this? It doesn't make any sense to capitalize ocelot. It goes against English conventions and the policy. Capitalizing ocelot looks amateurish and makes whoever wrote it look, quite frankly, like an idiot. Purerok (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Its under review at WikiProject Animals, stay tuned . ZooPro 05:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Endangered or not?

The ocelot shows here as not endangered, yet appears in the list of endangered species elsewhere in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_species)Patrick Murrray 16:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, check out this article in The Post-Standard of Syracuse: Two ocelots will move to zoo at Burnet Park It looks like they are endangered. -newkai t-c 22:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The one you are referring to is most likely the Texas Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis albescens). It is endangered while the other subspecies may or may not be. In general the Ocelot (L. pardalis) is not endangered while the Texas Ocelot subspecies (L. pardalis albescens) is. As for the other subspecies, I am not entirely sure. 67.186.251.240 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Daniel "Texas" Padia

The Ocelots in the USA are endangered while the Ocelots in Mexico and South America are "least Concerned". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.43.103 (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Names for ocelots

The article begins with a long list of various names for ocelots in different countries. Are these relevant to the English version of Wikipedia? Unless I'm mistaken, they're essentially foreign-language (presumably Spanish and Portuguese) names, which really aren't relevant unless we're going to start including all the names various cultures have for their native animals. Kombucha (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No responses to this and none expected anytime soon so I've made the edit.Kombucha (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In Popular Culture Section Inclusion

I've recently seen two examples of ocelots on television shows, most notably in the Archer "El Secruestro". Can we start this? 76.237.88.71 (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this should definately be included. 80.254.146.4 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, if the entry made by 80.254.146.4 is an example of what is proposed for this section. The entry in question appears to be a listing of non-notable references to ocelots in assorted cartoons. It hardly meets criteria spelled out in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Pinethicket (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree (agree with the comment by Pinethicket). Materialscientist (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" sections serve no compelling encyclopedic purpose in articles like Ocelot, and are mostly unverified collections of references to items of limited interest. Visit the Jaguar page for a good example of a properly done (and maintained) "In mythology and culture" section. I concur with the previous two editors, both long-time watchers of this and other felid articles. --Seduisant (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 76.237.88.71 and 80.254.146.4 that this is a valuable addition. I've updated the section which appeared to lack 76.237.88.71's suggestion. 149.254.60.161 (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus here. Other editors must weigh in. --Seduisant (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that the section is overly trivial, and is, in any case, inadequately sourced - it appears to be original research. Although I see assertions above that this is a "valuable addition" I don't see any explanation as to in what way it is "valuable". We need, to my mind, evidence that these particular mentions of ocelots have been commented on in independent sources, and evidence that they reflect, in some significant way, mankind's cultural relationship with, and understanding of, the species. I am not presently seeing any such evidence. Once such evidence is presented, it can at least be evaluated. Anaxial (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please change this?

At "Behavior" in the article, it says: "Ocelots hunt over a range of 18 km2 (6.9 sq mi), taking mostly small mammals (various rodents), reptiles and amphibians (lizards, turtles and frogs), crab, birds and fish." This is saying that lizards and turtles are amphibians!!!

Yeah, could be better phrased, if only to remove redundancy. Done now. Anaxial (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ocelotlarcomuseum.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ocelotlarcomuseum.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ocelotlarcomuseum.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Range map outdated

The range map in the article is outdated. The current map shows no presence anywhere near Arizona. However, several recent surveys have shown the presence of ocelots in southern Arizona. I thought I'd check here before updating the map. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please also change opening line?

Unfortunate wording in the outset of this article implies that Trinidad, Central America, and Mexico are all part of South America.

(These places are all part of North America, not South America.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.61.50 (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2014

As Pets:

The 1965 TV show Honey West regularly featured a rather uncooperative ocelot as the main character's house pet.

99.127.228.7 (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2014

Please update the second external link to the IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group "CSG Species Accounts: Ocelot". The Website of the IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group has been renewed and updated in autumn 2014. I suggest the following code:

• Species portrait Ocelot; IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group

The information found there could probably also be used to update/expand other sections of the article, but I currently don't have the time for this. Thank you. Robuer (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Done –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Estrus vs "heat"

@DeeJaye6: We use the technical term in many biology articles, far more than "heat". The term is linked. If a reader is unfamiliar with the term, they can click on through. We don't need to simplify every term down to the lowest common denominator. If you want to read only simple words, perhaps you want to read simple:ocelot. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ocelot. 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/20110716133353/http://www.staytonbonner.com/storage/Gram%20Parsons%20review-%20Statesman%2007.pdf to http://www.staytonbonner.com/storage/Gram%20Parsons%20review-%20Statesman%2007.pdf

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} 20:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

OCELOTS ARE AN ENDANGERED SPECIES, SO PLEASE CHANGE THE LEAST CONCERN TAB IN THE FACTS BAR FOR OCELOT Ocelot467548556438 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)OCELOT467548556438 Ocelot467548556438 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per this cited source, they're considered "least concern" Cannolis (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor making the request is speaking about the Texas sub-species mentioned as endangered and at this source or mentioned at "Populations of northeastern Mexico and Texas have experienced dramatic declines and the genetic impacts of isolation are apparent, particularly in Texas (Janecka et al. 2011 and Janecka et al. 2014). The number of Ocelots in Texas is believed to be between 50 – 80 individuals. These areas will certainly need attention or Ocelots are likely to be extirpated there. " at this source The united states federally protects the Ocelot population independently of the global IUCN rating, making the ocelot regionally endangered in the US. I still have to agree with editor Cannolis that this is not sufficient to change the slider. I do believe it is sufficient to be mentioned if not already within the article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.229.170 (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Trinidad

The article twice refers to Trinidad as a habitat for Ocelot's but then states that they are extirpated there. If they no longer survive in Trinidad should the other references be amended? --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The article says they are extirpated on Tobago, but it doesn't look like it says they are extirpated on Trinidad. Calathan (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Revolver Ocelot

Would a description of the references due to the Character Revolver Ocelot from the Metal Gear Series, and subsequent parody of the general populace's ignorance of the animal ("Ocelot... isn't that some sort of beaver or something?") Be appropriate for the "Other" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkthatgotfunk (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think so. Aluan Haddad (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I removed the following stuff:

The name of the animal derives from Nahuatl ocelotl. It also comes from the Mexican Aztec word tlalocelot.

Since is not a language (the Aztec spoke Nahuatl!), and a word can't simultaneously derive from two different words from the same language, I have removed this and demand a cited source for this information. — Timwi 10:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"a word can't simultaneously derive from two different words from the same language" — Why not? Oddity- (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ocelot is a borrowed word. As a Nahuatl speaker, I can tell you definitively and even pull out my dictionary proving that ocelotl means jaguar, and this is what ocelot comes from. There are historical records predating English-speakers using this word. This isn't even an isolated example. We had names for every creature in Mexico. I've added the first sentence back. The way Nahuatl works is the root word ocelotl can be given prefixes and suffixes. It's basically the same word. A quick Google search or trip to the Library would prove as much. Source could be the Hippocrene Concise Dictionary: Nahuatl-English English-Nahuatl (Aztec) by Fermin Herrera. 66.87.125.114 (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Arizona rarity

Bellagio99 first, regarding referencing, you say you have been editing in referencing for years but you have repeatedly appended a second citation inside a single <ref> pair with a semicolon - that is not how it is done! Also seem to have no familiarity with {{cite}} template but its use is optional - standard but optional (see Wikipedia:Citation_templates). I think that is what BhagyaMani meant by "use a template" - at the least put the unique reference in its own <ref> pair. It's easy to use a cite template though and much cleaner, and lets you readily insert title, author, publication, URL, etc. So like this <ref>{{cite news|author=Tony Davis|title=Border wall could be 'game over' for ocelots, jaguars in U.S., conservationist says|work=Arizona Daily Star|date=19 Feb 2019|page=C1|url=https://tucson.com/news/local/border-wall-could-be-game-over-for-ocelots-jaguars-in/article_cdf49167-3536-547d-a861-654abb2e6e34.html}}</ref>. You got some things wrong like the title of the article. Using the citation template makes things much cleaner.

As far as the facts of the article, you say "only five males reported" on BhagyaMani's talk page, but the article says this is actually an increase from what was seen before, which was zero. Anyway, the characterization "rarely" is your own. The article says for example It also could be a product of the fact that many of these areas have been managed really well. It could be there is more prey and resources. The fact that people are becoming aware of the importance of predators, and that predator eradication campaigns have fortunately been reduced in most areas, that’s really important. In other words, the expert is saying the population may have actually increased. This is a poor citation for inserting a "rarely" unless I missed something in the article.

Also, both of you, please do not edit war, use the talk page. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks, DIYeditor!! Yes, this is what I meant. There are far better ways to reference than this sloppy style used. Apart from this, this page is too good to be spoilt by referring to a newspaper article. I much prefer peer-reviewed and hence reliable sources. BhagyaMani (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources whether the semicolon style of bundling multiple citations should be added to the three examples of ways to do it because I have seen that elsewhere, so maybe Bellagio99 is just copying what they have seen. I disagree that the quotes of Aletris Neils are invalid because of coming from a newspaper, she does have an MS and is working on a PhD in the field. What I disagree with is Bellagio99 qualifying an article that says sightings have increased to mean "rarely" without the article saying anything clearly synonymous with "rarely". It's Bellagio's interpretation/OR. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Re template. I've been editing so long, that I am pre-template, but use the Wiki-guideline of using a reference format that is common to your profession--which I did. I have seen semi-colons a lot. Your thoughts on "rarity" are instructive--my guess is they are truly rare. Anyway, I have withdrawn from the attempt to add "rare"--and wish you all well in Wiki-work. I have also stopped watching the page so communicate with me on my talk page in the unlikely situation that you need to. Good luck.Bellagio99 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, Arizona rarity is further documented in the Distribution section, but I won't insist it be put in the lede.Bellagio99 (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ocelot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

• Sainsf, you're back, it's been a while   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see you as well! Thanks for such a detailed review, I clearly need to recall a lot of points I overlooked after a long break :D I believe I have addressed everything, please take a look. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• A lot of the times, creatures which can breed throughout the year are monogamous to some degree. Is that the case here?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Unable to find any reliable sources stating that.

• In the lead, "native to the southwestern United States, Mexico, Central and South America" seems a bit redundant with "Their range extends from the southwestern United States to northern Argentina"

Removed the part from the 3rd para.

• "Though marked as Least Concern by the IUCN" is "marked" really the right terminology? That sounds like "marked for death" or in this case "marked for living long and prospering"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. "Classified" is the general term.

• Where was Nahuatl spoken and by whom?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Going by the Wiki article it is spoken by the Nahua people of Mexico and El Salvador. Nothing except the name of the language in the source. Should I add anything here?

I guess not   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• "based on descriptions by earlier naturalists such as John Ray" who were the other naturalists?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be part of the article's legacy. Omitted the part.

• "Eventually zoologist Joel Asaph Allen among others placed the ocelot in the genus Leopardus (described by Gray in 1842)" I'm sure you have a year for this, and to which Gray are you referring to?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The Mammal Species of the World entry states a few authors (and the respective years) who included ocelot in Leopardus (20th century onward). Allen did it in his 1919 paper, then there were a few others whose details I could not find, and the authors of the Mammalian Species article (1997) were also mentioned. I went with mentioning just one author as an example.

Do you know who first included ocelot in Leopardus?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure who did it first. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was Gray when he made the genus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You mean in this work? Seems both L. griseus and L. picteus actually refer to the ocelot (enlisted as synonyms for L. pardalis in Mammalian Species), would it be fine to just use this source to say Gray was the first to put it in the genus? Like does the source suffice? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Make sure refs in a foreign language use the parameters |language= and |trans-title=   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Done.

• In the synonyms list, I think it may be better to wikilink everyone's name every time it's written rather than just the first mention   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Not really sure about this one. I see the convenience but a few names are repeated often, which do we link and which not?

You link all of them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, done. I was worried about repetitive links but it is fine. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Do we need to say "phylogeographically"? I don't think it really adds anything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed.

• Instead of using "morphological" do you wanna use "physical"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"Morphological" would probably be more appropriate for a study involving skeletal as well as outer physical features.

• "recognized three groups (Texas, Central America and South America excluding eastern Brazil)" wouldn't eastern Brazil be a 4th group then?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The CatSG source says "Microsatellite differentiation identified three groups; Texas, Central America and South America (excluding eastern Brazil)". I chose to keep the wording intact.

The source says subspecies are L. p. albescens from the Tex-Mex border, L. p. pardis from Central America, and there aren't many genetic differences among the proposed South American subspecies (namely aequatorialis, pseudopardalis, melanura, and steinbachi), and South American ocelots could be classified as L. p. pseudopardalis, but the southern South American form could be L. p. mitis. I think the "Bolivian populations are smaller" is when they were referring to steinbachi, and they said there was bias because the steinbachi skulls were smaller   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't find the mention of eastern Brazil in the original paper, probably it was not assessed or something? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting the source. Its main point is that it recognizes 3 to 5 ocelot subspecies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok I see your point. We just say they recognized 3-5 subspecies, though I am confused about the regions they assign them to. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Instead of that last sentence in the 1st par of Subspecies, you could say, "In 2013, a study of craniometric variation and microsatellite diversity in ocelots throughout the range recognized three subspecies: L. p. albescens from the Texas–Mexico border, L. p. pardis from Central America and L. p. pseudopardalis from South America, though L. p. mitis may describe ocelots from the southern half of its South American range." I don't know where I got the 5th one from actually   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Reread ref 21 to see if by "groups" you meant "subspecies", and what species name did the 2010 study give to the population it split from ocelots?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Ref 21 says "groups". I can not find the species name in the main text as it is in Portuguese. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It says it doesn't recognizes any subspecies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I took the inference from CatSG and cited the original source.. if the inference is wrong we shall have to remove it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Bolivian populations were remarkably smaller" smaller than who?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed.

The source didn't actually say Bolivian ocelots ("L. p. steinbachi") are smaller, it said that the Bolivian ocelots used in the study were generally smaller than the other ocelots which would introduce bias and skew results a bit   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

My bad. I actually feel it is better omitted due to its irrelevance. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• "the ocelot diverged between 2.41 and 1.01 mya" diverged from what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed.

• Was 2019 really when people figured out ocelots have unique color patterns? We already use spot ID for other spotted cat species, like leopards, cheetahs, and jaguars   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Right, the knowledge about unique spot pattern in ocelots is not new, but the research into using the pattern for unique identification of ocelots appears to be new. I can not find more info on this (is it already in use, is it the first paper to propose a method to do it?) Could you suggest how we should mention this here, unless it is irrelevant and should be removed?

You could just say something like "Each ocelot has a unique color pattern which can be used to identify specific individuals"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• You're not consistent with your units, you switch from both metric to imperial and imperial to metric

Fixed.

• "other environmental parameters are not significant in determining its occurrence" so do you mean only water availability determines occurrence? What does "other" mean?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I try to say factors other than those aforementioned are not so important. Reworded.

• I think the first paragraph of Habitat could be reorganized and condensed a bit. There seems to be 2 factors determining distribution: things that change prey availability, and avoiding competition/humans. It should be clear there's just these 2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Rearranged.

• Why do you mention the biological reserve?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Part of the legacy, I see it's not so relevant. Removed.

• "prey on small terrestrial mammals, such as armadillos, opossums and rabbits, rodents, small birds, fish, insects and reptiles"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed.

• "According to studies" is a very vague and rather unnecessary phrase   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed.

• Instead of simply "a study" you could could go with "a [year] study"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed.

• Small grammar lesson: "Ocelots are carnivores, and primarily active during twilight and at night" because you used "and", you now have 2 independent clauses, so it should be "Ocelots are carnivores, and are primarily active during twilight and at night". If you remove "and", you now have an independent and a dependent clause, so you can say "Ocelots are carnivores, primarily active during twilight and at night"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Noted.

• What exactly eats ocelots?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Added.

• I feel like Threats and conservation and Interactions with humans are about the same section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure how exactly we can merge them. Could use some suggestions here.

Heading Interactions with humans, subheadings Poaching, Habitat loss, Spotted fur trade, In art/In heraldry/etc., etc. and I don't really get why Lily Pons is mentioned. Were ocelots not very popular exotic pets back when that was a popular thing?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Rearranged. I could not find reliable sources for their popularity as pets, just two well-supported examples. I wish I could just call them famous exotic pets. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• When was the US fur ban imposed?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Sometime in the 1970s, unable to find the exact year.

According to this NYT article from 1972, the US didn't specifically impose a ban on spotted cat fur, but added spotted cats to the Endangered Species List so that Congress could control and inhibit trade. this book has a lot of good info on the spotted fur trade

Thanks. I have expanded upon this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• How does habitat fragmentation lead to disease?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The source does not exactly specify it, probably refers to low immunity of such individuals. Anyway, removed.

• "According to the IUCN, ocelot hunting has been banned in" I don't think we need to specifically call out the IUCN on this point. Laws are public domain, these are not postulations of a study, these are facts   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed.

• Were there any ocelot gods?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't find any with reliable sources.

I'm finding two books from 1904 (this and this) saying "According to the well-known myth, Tezcatlipoca, when cast down from heaven by Quetzalcoatl, 'fell into the water where he transformed himself into an ocelot' and arose to kill certain giants"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I am unable to access these... but I found the same thing here. I will add this quote with this source, and you may add your 2 sources since you can access them. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• "and a 777.2 to 1,249.7 cm (25.5 to 41 ft) long tail"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Checked for more errors. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• There appears to be some problem with the {{cite iucn}} template in many articles including this one, no idea how to fix it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

check to see if the doi you put in is the most current doi and not an older one (an older doi will still redirect you to the same page but will present the ref error)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I checked it, it's the same as the present DOI. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay seems it is fixed now. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• May be good to say they don't exhibit sexual dimorphism   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

What would be a good way to add it in the text with examples from the facts mentioned? I mention sexual dimorphism if at all the species shows it, so I'm gonna do it for the first time. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Somewhere in Characteristics, you can just say something along the lines of "ocelots do not display sexual dimorphism" and maybe gloss it. It could be a stand-alone sentence or maybe tacked onto the end of the first paragraph   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, will add it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• But in any case, it'll pass   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Weight contradictions

Second paragraph of Characteristics section:

> The ocelot weighs between 5.0 and 7.3 kg (11 and 16 lb)

> Females weigh 6.6–11.3 kg (15–25 lb) and males 7–15.5 kg (15–34 lb).

Can we get some consensus? 66.76.242.44 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Apparently there was an error in putting the citations in the right place, though I'm not sure where the weights for the sexes came from so I omitted it. I've checked for other inconsistences and found none. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The Sunquists list somewhat different weight ranges for female and male ocelots than you just changed in the text. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find the different weight ranges for both sexes that you mention in Sunquists' account, do you mean the table at the end? I haven't looked through it really. But I think the data needs to be added more carefully from there given the geographical variations noted. In any case the existing values weren't exactly correct if the source was Sunquists' account. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok I looked at the edits you made, if you mean the 8 to 10 range then it is mentioned in the first page of the account as the most common range and in my opinion are a valuable addition to the article. The table records various measurements in different experimental situations, so they should be added carefully. I haven't checked the values you added but I assume you used the table. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the ranges in that table for both females and males are compiled from various sources, i.e. represent the largest data set of non-captive ocelots known at the time. Whereas 8–10kg is most likely an average across sexes. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I see. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable source?

@Attila412 and BhagyaMani: I'm baffled about the claims regarding the Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy. It's a Taylor & Francis journal, a publisher that while not the poster boy of publishing ethics, has never been accused of being predatory. And all their journals are peer-reviewed, which is trivial to find out [7]. It will require more than "I don't like their mission statement" to label this this source as unreliable. Let's have some evidence please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating this discussion, Elmidae! See the statement by Taylor & Francis at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=uwlp20 : Peer Review Policy: All research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous refereeing by three anonymous referees. Clearly, Attila412's claim is incorrect. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with BhagyaMani; looking through the criteria on the policy page that Atilla points to in support, it's not obvious to me that they are applicable. "Predatory open access journals" are discouraged, but the journal in question is not open access, so that doesn't apply. Since it's peer-reviewed, it doesn't lack "meaningful editorial oversight", either. So we're left with it being "widely considered... extremist" or having some conflict of interest. I can't say that I know enough about this specific journal to definitively rule those out, although they seem rather unlikely. Are there sources that support such claims? If so, perhaps they can be discussed at WP:RSN but otherwise, I'm not seeing it. Anaxial (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Swivelling Feet?

In the last few days I've heard a couple of news/talkshow people mention that ocelots are the only animal (or felid?) that can swivel their feet 180°. I came here hoping to learn more about this feature, but alas! If it's true and if there's a solid source, it seems like it deserves inclusion. I presume this feature is of value in climbing down from trees, but has it got other purposes (sneaking in, confusing pursuers, making dumplings?) as well? Do the offspring of housecat-ocelot pairs inherit this adaptation? Thanks for considering adding this. 46.76.255.114 (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)