Talk:Smilodon

Splitting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that information pertaining to Smilodon fatalis and Smilodon populator be split off into their own articles. Both species are very notable and many information on each of those species is known and in this very large article. Given the size of the article and the notability of these species, I believe this split is justified. The original Smilodon article should be used as a basic info the genus as a whole and to highlight the less studied/poorly known species (ie gracilis). Porqaz (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose - all relevant information about the three species is already present here, and it passed WP:GAN and WP:FAC as such. Guidelines agreed on at WP:Palaeo state[1] that prehistoric species should be covered at the genus article unless the article grows too long, which is not the case here. Less is known about prehistoric species than extant ones, so it makes little sense to split short articles left and right simply for the sake of it, as proposed here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose, per FunkMonk. There is no need to split them off, not when they are covered more than adequately in this article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose, per above. LittleJerry (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• support Another overzealous application of a guideline noted at one of the relevant projects. That reviews of the page exist has no bearing on this discussion, but it is a lumping model that is strongly preferred by the opposer in their other FA submissions. ~ cygnis insignis 14:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It very much does have bearing on this discussion, as it is that project that maintains these articles. We should not split just for the sake of it and create pointless WP:content forks of duplicate text. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Support- the way the article is right now is fine, but honestly, with two species being so well-known but distinct (S. fatalis and S. populator), I think they would benefit from having their own articles. In fact, a was a little surprised that they haven't already been split. In particular, S. populator; its paleobiology is quite divergent from S. fatalis, not the least because it was likely solitary, and possibly had a more dominant role in the trophic pyramid. I recall looking specifically for information and citations regarding S. populator in this article, only to find much information on S. fatalis. There is so much literature which could be used to fill out an article on each species, not the least examining the paleo-ecology of each species, and what habitats and ecological roles they preferred. Off the top of my head, I can think of the contrasts between S. populator in the more open Patagonia, versus the savanna woodlands of the Brazilian intertropical region, and studies I have read regarding their prey preferences. I thought about adding this to the current article, however it looked large enough to me already, and seems to generally blend all three species. Although I am generally in support of splitting, I would also be in favour of creating little sub-sections under relevant sections with S. fatalis and S. populator as sub-headings, outlining the species-level differences of each animal's biology- this could very well better cover the genus' range in both North and South America, which would likely breathe better in their own articles anyway. In regards to the shared info if the species were to be split, I would suggest keeping the most detailed version in this article, then transferring short summaries to either of the new articles, should that happen. Interested to hear your opinions. SuperTah (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This article has more than enough capacity to cover any specific info about each species, and it currently specifies what info pertains to which species. If you can think of more info to add, feel free to do so. FunkMonk (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Support- While the guidelines mentioned are useful to avoid stub articles, I see no good reason not to give Smilodon fatalis and S. populator their own articles. Both species are very well known, probably even better than many modern species. The way the article is organised now, it makes it unnecessarily difficult for the layman to find information about certain species. As already mentioned, S. fatalis and S. populator are also likely to have differed considerably from each other in ecological terms. So while separate articles for the different Homotherium species would be rather pointless, as they were all morphologically and probably ecologically very similar, this does not apply to Smilodon. Here, separate articles would promote the understanding of their differences. For many of the popular, recently extinct megafauna such as mammoths, bison, steppe lions and Stephanorhinus species, there are species-specific articles which, in my experience, are useful. AndersenAnders (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Compromise: For those who want to split, write up Draft:Smilodon fatalis and Draft:Smilodon populator in their entirety, then bring the drafts here for review. If both articles are collectively deemed good enough to stand on their own, without being too redundant to the (rewritten, possibly need a third draft) genus article, then the split can go through. (Though I admit to preferring that if a split does go through, all three species getting articles instead of just one). Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

But why? What is it this article needs that more articles will provide other than just more articles to keep track of? FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Because people tend to be very eager to propose or support a split, but not so much to turn the split articles into good ones. And because, in fairness, both S. fatalis and S. populator do have a considerable amount of available information, probably enough to make two good articles (or Good Articles). This is, essentially, the barrier to actually splitting: make the new articles good ones, and don't argue just to make two stubs. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

They may be eager, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea, and no one has really pushed for it seriously other than just saying it should be done. This article is not yet at the maximum before splitting is recommended, so any missing info should just be added here unless it becomes too unwieldy. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the compromise and am willing to work on the new articles if others here show their willingness to do the same. -

AndersenAnders (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Smilodon gracilis National Park service.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Species

There are actually five species. 2601:18D:4701:F00:DCA1:82E6:781D:8F97 (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Which are? FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Paleodb seems to recognize two more, S. rigii and S. crucians. But a search of Gscholar tells me that S. rigii hasn't been considered valid since at least 2007, and S. crucians hasn't been mentioned in literature for even longer, it looks like. However, some authors have recently proposed a re-examination of the S. fatalis-S. californicus synonymy. But that is still only four. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Extinction

Hi @FunkMonk, while I understand why you want sources for some of the things I changed, I am dissapointed by the fact that you reverted my whole edit. Because as I see it, there are some genuine erors in that paragraph.

- "were replaced by smaller and more agile ones like deer" is not supported by the source, and is factually incorrect as well. Odoiloceus was widespread and common throughout the American Pleistocene. Cervus canadense invaded the continent during the late Pleistocene, but had coexisted with bison and mammoths, for example, in Eurasia. Neither of them replaced the extinct megafauna. They simply remained.

- "the faster and more generalized felids that replaced them" that the bobcat would have been a faster runner than Homotherium is an assumption, and a pretty wild one at that. I don't see why we don't treat it as this. Also, Felidae includes Machairodontinae as a subfamily. If we say machairodontines were replaced by the "faster and more agile" feilds, this gives the impression that machairodontines were not felids.

- Machairodontines and other felids coexisted since the Miocene. That is a fact. I can understand if you caution that at one point or another certain species might have displaced each other, but the overall fact remains. There is no good reason why conical-toothed cats would have suddenly completely displaced the sabre-toothed ones after millions of years of coexistence.

AndersenAnders (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding here. As stated in the edit summary, it is not that I necessarily disagree with you that I reverted, but that you did not add sources that support these statements when changing the article. Since it is a featured article, that is a strict requirement. So the problem now is that if you change the wording to reflect something that isn't stated in the sources used, this will make the text misleading, as people will assume the new information is supported by the current sources. So what to do here is first to identify how and if the current text differs from the currently used source, and second, if we re-incorporate the statements you added before, to find reliable sources that support them in the context of Smilodon and add them. Pinging PrimalMustelid for further observations. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand. As I see it, we could still delete the "replaced by deer" part, as it is not supprted by a source, at least not the one that would be obvious and should support it ("exceptional forearm strength in Smilodon"). Mauricio Antón also calls this theory unlikely, as machairodontines were more flexible than previously assumed, and were by no means limitted to giants as prey.

The part about felids being faster than machairodontines is a paraphrase taken from Mauricio Antón "Sabertooth". He cites J. Hough who, however, even in his description of how unfit and ill-adapted Smilodon would have been, differentiates it from the true felids. Antón then goes on to critizise the view Hough expresses, and uses the term felines (which, however, excludes the jaguar). Since there is no well-established name to refer to pantherines and felines collectively to the exclusion of machairodontines, (at least none that I know of), may we adopt the wording "true felids", and explain what is meant in a foodnote? Additionally, we might cite Barnett, Ross, et al. "Genomic adaptations and evolutionary history of the extinct scimitar-toothed cat, Homotherium latidens." as evidence that Homotherium was probably highly cursorial, probably more so than any modern cat apart from the cheetah. Antón also discusses the unlikelyhood of modern felids as the culprit, and explains that they coexisted at the top of the food chain "for more than a million years" (p. 223). He also speaks of "the allegedly faster modern cats (...) (p. 224) in this context. AndersenAnders (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

We could also flesh out the case for humans more, as Antón devotes considerable space to this theory in his work. By citing Faurby, Søren, et al. "Brain expansion in early hominins predicts carnivore extinctions in East Africa." we could also explain how top predators are more likely to suffer from human kleptoparasitism and competition than smaller predators, which would weave in quite well with the narrative. AndersenAnders (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, chiming in, and thanks for coming along! Apologies for any frustration you had on your editing experience. Regarding the "deer" part, it's a bit of a complicated story. Yes, there were several cervids in North America (Odocoileus, Cervalces, and Navahoceros, though the last likely went extinct earlier in the Rancholabrean), but they weren't exactly dominant elements of Pleistocene faunas. In addition, both Cervus and Alces did disperse into North America around 15,000 years ago, but they only reached their maximum range distributions within North America by later in the Holocene, so essentially they did fill roles as large-sized herbivores after the extinctions of many of the previous.

I do agree that the Machairodontinae is not "inferior" to the Pantherinae, the former was the first successful group of large-sized felids after all. However, the article never suggested that they was actually the case - this was simply a paragraph reflecting on historical thoughts on the extinctions of the machairodontines. That said, you seem to have quotes cited on you regarding this topic, so if you want, you can edit the paragraph if you feel it's necessary.

Finally, regarding the last suggestion of yours, I wouldn't recommend using that source as an application towards explaining extinctions in another continent - that would break WP:SYNTH, so original research or synthesis is a no-no. Articles shouldn't have "narratives" that are only theoretical - they are here first and foremost as encyclopedic content.

Let me know if you have any additional concerns. Happy editing! PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, if deer filled the role of large-sized herbivores, then this statement still requires a source. And even if you find a source for that, to be frank, I doubt the veracity. It is expectable that deer have profited to some degree from the extinction of most megafaunal animals from the continent. But as a matter of fact, deer cannot be a qualitative replacement for Proboscideans (just to name one group). Simply due to physical constraints. Deer cannot browse foliage in the highest treetops, knock over mature trees, or eat the fruit of Maclura pomifera and Gymnocladus dioicus. And that is why they could not replace the extinct megafauna, which is visible in the changes in vegetation and fire regimes, for example.

I understand that the paragraph is a paraphrase of earlier works. But if I did not know better, I would get the impression that true felids were indeed faster than machairodontines. I think we should either adopt the wording "faster and more generalized" as a direct quote, or use "allegedly" and cite Antón.

So apart from the part about the deer, I think we have come to a conclusion. I will start implementing the suggested changes as soon as I find time. Thanks to all for their valuable contributions. AndersenAnders (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Feel free, as long as it is properly sourced and the citations are formatted properly like the rest of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Additions seem good, AndersenAnders, but you'll need to add more specific page numbers for verifiability than just cite the book overall. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to do that anyway. Done AndersenAnders (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @FunkMonk, the lead should summarise the main points from the text. Which it does not do the way the summary is now. Human influence is increasingly crystalising as the main cause of the Quaternary extinction event. Why does the lead not reflect this? AndersenAnders (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

As this is only one competing theory, there is no reason to give it WP:undue weight in the intro. The current intro wording "Its reliance on large animals has been proposed as the cause of its extinction, along with climate change and competition with other species, but the exact cause is unknown" already makes this point. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The human impact theory is one of the two main theories, and it is the one that explains global patterns best, also statistically. It is also quite specific in its assertion that humans in particular are responsible. Additionally, the human impact argument goes beyond mere competition to include destruction of habitat, extirpation of prey and deliberate persecution of predators. Grouping it among an old and largely outdated argument for interspecific competition does not give it due weight. Besides, while it may techically be true that " competition with other species" includes humans, most people will not read it as this, but get the impression that climate change and interspecific competition between animals were important, whereas humans were negligible. AndersenAnders (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"and it is the one that explains global patterns best" see, this is subjective, and there are plenty of studies that say the opposite or that it was a combination, and that is what the article should reflect. Interspecies competition includes human competition, so it is already included anyhow. As far as I recall, no one has proposed that this genus was directly hunted by humans, so it would be misleading to imply this. If they killed their prey off, that's a longer story that is explained already in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not arguing against the fair portrayal of all relevant viewpoints. But there is ample evidence for widespread habitat destruction associated with an "unprecedented" increase in fire intensivity at Rancho la Brea, which "strongly implicates" humans as the causal actor. The relevant work is already referenced in the main body. This goes beyond the definition of competition as I understand it. The sixth mass extinction event well underway is not caused by competition with humans, but above all by habitat desctruction caused by humans. Saying that the late-Quaternary extinction event correlates best with the spread of Homo sapiens is also not subjective, but statistical. It is also in line with the ongoing population decline recent megafauna continue to experience. The influence of humans best explains why the extinction of megafauna in South America has been disproportionately greater than in Africa, for example. In contrast, the arguments in favour of climate change fail to convincingly explain why earlier interglacial transitions, such as the one before MIS 5, did not have the same impact at all.

All I'm saying is that the lead should mention humans as a possible factor independent from other species to account for these findings. Because the argument is independent of and much more potent than the largely superseded argument of interspecific competition with other predators. AndersenAnders (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I get your passion for the topic, but acting like this view is now absolute fact seems way too extreme for the purposes of this page. I think "competition with other species" can and does include humans. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not in fact acting like this view is now an absolute fact. But to summarise the destruction of habitats and the disruption of ecosystems and trophic cascades under the term "competition" strikes me as odd. Nobody would say that modern species extinction is due to competition between species, even if that might be technically true. AndersenAnders (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It is surely competition for habitat, no? I'll tag the only other regulars in this field for opinions, PrimalMustelid and Hemiauchenia. FunkMonk (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean yeah, it can be defined pretty much as competition for food resources, and Homo sapiens impacting populations of certain mammals such as North American Equus spp. via hunting that Smilodon may depend on is technically that.

That said, the intro seems fine to me, trying to push some agenda of a "global extinction event" when other sources have argued that the extinction phases, especially by individual genera of North America, are nuanced and individual rather than globalized pretty much gives WP:undue weight as mentioned earlier and can certainly be seen as extreme. North America in the latest Pleistocene isn't the equivalent of the Mauritius island or New Zealand, and individual species/genus extinctions should be defined accordingly. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"Yeah", "pretty much" and "technically". Exactly, technically the wording is not wrong. But it is odd and gives WP:undue weight to a theory that Mauricio Antón, among others, has called unlikely given the fact that non-human competitors of Smilodon shared its fate. The idea that Felids simply displaced the Machairodontinae is now very much a fringe one that does not get a lot of academic support on its own. The two main theories for the late-Quaternary extinction of megafauna in general, and Smilodon in particular, are climate change and human impact. The lead mentions only one of them directly and makes it seem as if (non-human) interspecfic competition somehow enjoys equal support. What exactly would be so drastic about giving the human impact theory a mention in the lead.

I am not "pushing an agenda". I am merely referring to peer-reviewed scientific papers published in leading academic journals, and thus literature that is relevant to the discussion and within the bounds of scientific argument. Whether Nature is pursuing an agenda when they publish a paper showing that the existing megafauna has declined since the late Quaternary, suggesting that humans and not the climate are the culprit, is for you to judge. But that's not even the point of this discussion. You are right, North America is not the same as Mauritius and New Zealand, the extinction sequence takes place over a longer period of time. But that is to be expected in a human impact scenario because the land mass is incomparably larger. AndersenAnders (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You were arguing about leaning towards a one-sided global impact theory earlier, were you not? Anyways, I have an idea that may satisfy you: I can reword the lead to something along the lines of "Its reliance on large animals has been proposed as the cause of its extinction. S. fatalis may have been impacted by habitat turnover and loss of prey it specialized on due to possible climatic plus anthropogenic impacts and other factors while the extinction of S. populator remains poorly understood." As long as the lede mainly reflects on the extinction of Smilodon in particular, we should be good. Tagging @FunkMonk for input. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise to me. And of course, feel free to add relevant sourced information in the article body itself so that it elaborates clearly on the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry if my comments above have given the impression that I was trying to emphasise a one-sided view, but that was not my intention. My intention from the start was to give the human impact theory due weight in the lead, equal to climate change. Your @PrimalMustelid suggestion does this satisfactorily in my opinion. AndersenAnders (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Size Estimates

Hi, I hope you don't mind me asking but is the shoulder height mentioned here, 120cm(3'11"), an average size estimate or a high end one?

Because you provided a range for their weights and lengths but not for how tall they get. 2001:4456:C16:E600:F36E:774B:B39C:CAAA (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As you can see from the text, it says "up to" about the heights mentioned. We can only provide estimates that are available in the literature. But please bring up if you know further estimates or ranges in reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)