Talk:Jaguar

Typo in "Evolution" section; also suggestion for new reference

where it says "Results of DNA-based studies are conclusive, and the position of the jaguar relative to the other species varies depending on methods and sample sizes used", I think it was supposed to say "inconclusive"

Compare the Wiktionary entries for "inconclusive" and "conclusive" (can't add the links to Wiktionary b/c then Wikipedia will think I'm a spam-bot)

Anyway it's a pretty good/comprehensive/thorough compendium of references to studies on the subject

The links seem to mostly mention the older/mitochondrial only studies -- perhaps it could be considered to add a reference to the 2017 study "Genome-wide signatures of complex introgression and adaptive evolution in the big cats" (in Science Advances) which used whole genome data (not just mitochondrial) and accounted for the possibility of prehistoric introgression/hybridization events -- the results of the study concluded the jaguar is basal to a combined leopard/tiger clade

In the news - jaguar escapes New Orleans zoo and kills other animals

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/audubon-zoo-new-orleans-jaguar-escapes-kills-6-animals-2018-07-14/

News reports indicate that a jaguar at the Audobon Zoo (New Orleans) escaped on July 14, 2018, and killed a number of other animals. One zoo official stated that this was a territorial dispute rather than the animal hunting for food. This incident might make an interesting footnote in the article, although I'm not sure where I would add it. I'm also not sure how much weight I would give this hypothesis, since it is unclear if it is an expert opinion on the killing, or just a guess. In any case, the link is above and I think there is enough info in this comment to serve as as starting point for other interested editors. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Etamni I put it here. Leo1pard (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"Threats" section

In the "Threats" section, please change "the 1960" to "the 1960s". Thanks! 217.39.102.114 (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done   Jts1882 | talk  15:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

edit request

I find "except for black caimans" followed by a comma. Use semicolon, not comma. Need explanation?

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2019

Please add Wikilink to cheetah below pic. 95.90.248.57 (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Already done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Lift semi-protection?

I've just had a request to lift semi-protection on this article. However, after looking at the talk-page archives I can see that the protection has prevented a number of inappropriate and controversial edits on this high profile article, so I am not willing to lift protection. A request can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection where another admin may have a different opinion.

Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users, as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. So, if an unregistered editor feels that there is a problem with the article they can either leave a message here, or register an account and get involved. The protection does not prevent people from making improvements to the article, it just requires a small amount of extra effort - enough to show some level of commitment to the value of the improvement being desired.

Also, registering an account conceals your IP address. Your IP address can reveal information about you, such as where you live, which is information many people would regard as private, especially if making an edit that someone else may disagree with. SilkTork (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2020

The northern range of the jaguar should be from the Southern United States (currently Arizona). see book: Borderland Jaguars: Tigres de la Frontera Paperback – September 21, 2001 by David E. Brown ALLBN (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The section about the United States does talk about sightings in Arizona. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect English

In 1919, the jaguar was said to have occurred in the Monterey, California region.

SegeLazeW (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

SegeLazeW, Thanks for spotting this. I read the source and made the corrections. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

As part of a sweep through all the old featured articles (WP:URFA/2020), I've checked whether this article still meets the featured article criteria. I think the article isn't very far, but I do have a few concerns:

1. I've placed several update needed tags in the text
2. the evolution subsection is based on very old sources  Done
3. I've placed a citation needed tag in the text  Done
4. there are some issues with prose. I've tried to fix the easy ones
   1. The jaguar and the cougar, which is the next-largest cat in South America, but is usually larger than the jaguar in Central or North America,[34] are often sympatric (related species sharing overlapping territory) and have often been studied in conjunction. Probably need splitting, but not sure how to do it with citations
5. the images in the last section take up more space than section, so that the formatting of the citation on desktop become scrambled up. A gallery may prevent this from happening.
6. The United States is a subsection of conservation, whereas other countries aren't. I think the best solution is to merge that subsection into the introductory paragraph.

If these issues cannot be addressed via the talk page, the article can be taken to the WP:featured article review process to find more editors to help. If the problems cannot be solved at FAR either, the article may be delisted. Time and help is always granted to editors who wish to improve the article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene per #4, what do you mean about splitting? If I can understand, perhaps I can help with the citations.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The sentence should probably read something like this: The jaguar and the cougar, are often sympatric (related species sharing overlapping territory) and have often been studied in conjunction. The cougar is the next-largest cat in South America, but is usually larger than the jaguar in Central or North America,[34].. I didn't know whether 34 covers the entire two sentences. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene, thanks for your attention here. Regarding #2 "the evolution subsection is based on very old sources" I don't consider this to be a problem, as a good source, however old, is perfectly fine. The "evolution" of Jaguars is not going to change. (Comment by Tribe of Tiger, lost my signature somehow...)

I searched for more recent sources than the ones referenced, but didn't find any. So imo, this part of section is ok as is. But a FA should have a cladogram !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, oh my, I had to look up the meaning of cladogram! Are there WP articles that feature this helpful diagram? Thanks for your supportive cmt regarding the evolution section. In terms of a FA, I see it was promoted in 2006, and my understanding is that fourteen or so years ago, the standards were less exacting. Nonetheless, it is an informative article, well organized, etc., etc. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll add one, :):):). -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, thanks for your lovely cladograms. A very helpful addition! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Merged, per your #6 point. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

One of the sections above has a suggestions for a 2017 cite for evolution. Is it any good? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This does look like a good source, but what information in the article did you intend for it to support? Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I know nothing about evolution. Can it be used to replace the sentence Results of DNA-based studies are conclusive, and the position of the jaguar relative to the other species varies depending on methods and sample sizes used? I think that is meant to read inconclusive, and am very wary of sentence that say we don't know something, based on sources that are at least 15 years old. The other sentences also indicate various stages of uncertainty, where we may have gained more certainty now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll look into this later today. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

After some changes, the sentence in question, and the sentence immediately preceding, have been removed, (Fossils of the extinct Panthera gombaszoegensis and the American lion(P. atrox) show characteristics of both the jaguar and the lion (P. leo).[22] Results of DNA-based studies are conclusive, and the position of the jaguar relative to the other species varies depending on methods and sample sizes used.[21][22][23][24]), so I think you can take this off your list.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :). BhagyaMani; a lot of your edit summaries seem to indicate there were significant problems with source-text integrity. Is that right? If so, spot checks need to be done in other sections as well, to see whether this is a pervasive problem. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Good idea to spot check for source-text integrity in other sections !! The statements that I checked were not entirely wrong, but did not represent RESULTS of these publications adequately. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

#7 is there an easier word for Phylogeny? For a core articles such as this one, the table of contents should be understandable to a broad public. Maybe "evolution and relation to other cats"? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Phylogeny is regularly used as a section or subsection title in Wikipedia articles. Evolutionary relationships or systematics are possible alternatives. Perhaps the section should be called classification with taxonomy and evolutionary relationships as subsections (unsigned by Jts 1882, sorry I don't know how to sign this for them)

Per Femkemilene's comment, I think we would better serve the general reading public, our core audience, if the word "evolution" was included in a section or subsection title. Evolution is familiar to most readers, phylogeny, not so much. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

.. halfway done? About, I have a few more that I can add. And you, LittleJerry? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the rest, assuming Tribe of Tiger did the copyedit. LittleJerry (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene, everything good? LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That awkward sentence (#4) is the only outstanding one;

I'm think we should stop the use of the word extant in the lede of these common animals. I don't think I learned this word as a teenager, and I strongly believe we should cater to the youngest group of Wikipedia readers for articles about common animals in the lede, without making it into Wikikids. (Say 12+ in age, maybe 14+?). Glossing it as (not extinct) feels a bit overdone. Can we replace it with still-living? Hovering over the word to show the first line of the Wikipedia article on extant is only more intimidating, and that feature isn't available on all systems. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Big yes to NOT using 'extant'. I usually replace this by the much nicer word 'living' !! Even 'still-..' is not needed, imo. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we lable this "Satisfactory" now? LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I've addressed my final comment, but I didn't have access to the source. I'll mark it as satisfactory. FemkeMilene (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. We encourage editors to mark their 'own' FAs as satisfactory as well when kept up-to-date. FemkeMilene (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Re awkward sentence #4 : hope that reads better now without the () and repeated comments on size? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, brilliant :). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Super, happy that you are too. Enjoyed the team work, and again with LittleJerry. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we need verbose explanations of terms when they are linked to existing pages? I don't think so and prefer to be concise. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

While short explanations are always preferable to verbose ones (see Tony1's exercises for removing fluff), linking is a last resort when trying to make articles understandable to an appropriate public, as many people will not be able to easily switch between pages, or be too time-constrained to do so. As this is a topic with a very broad audience, we should not resort to linking if possible. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, why send our readers on a treasure hunt? A short sentence or phrase will make the meaning clear, and if they want more, they can follow a specific link for more detailed information. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

So instead of linking to obligate carnivore, you prefer ..only eats meat ? Anyway: after reading your comment, I intentionally did not link to nocturnality and crepuscular animal in my recent additions. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If you intentionally did not link, I do hope your sentences provided an explanation of these terms. Otherwise, you may, unintentionally (or intentionally?) be depriving our readers of knowledge. We don't write for ourselves, we write to educate others, and they may be much younger people, or people from areas with poor quality educational systems. I know we all want to help such people. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the ideal for jargon is to (pipe) link and 'translate' it to normal English. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene, agreed. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene (and other editors): This was promoted to FA, per top of this page, on 11 September 2006. [1]. If articles pass a new review, I think it would be very helpful to note the new review "pass date" at the top of the talkpage, for future reference. This article has progressed, by Jaguar-sized leaps and bounds, since 2006. (We now have 130 refs, vs. 41 refs) Obviously, fourteen years ago, our standards were less exacting. Some of you, who are working so diligently here, may wish to read the original FA version, so you can see the excellent progress that you and others, have made through the years! With sincere respect and thanks to all, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Re misunderstanding of the term 'peak' in conjunction with activity : nocturnal activity is NOT a peak, but a peak in nocturnal activity occurs around a specific time at night. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why you commented here, versus starting a new section. In the edit you reverted, I was attempting to give our readers a "hint" concerning unfamiliar terms, so they don't have to go on a wikilink treasure hunt. The sentence read: "Camera trap studies revealed that the jaguar primarily exhibits a crepuscular–nocturnal activity pattern, with peak activity around dawn and dusk, and at night. According to WP, this is the definition of crepuscular (active at dawn and dusk) and nocturnal (active at night). "Peak activity " is a generalized English phrase. They are probably sleeping/resting during other hours, but are most active in other "peak" periods (crepuscular/nocturnal) = "peak activity". We need to convey this information to our readers. However, I shall reword the explanatory phrase. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Apex predator and habitat loss

The sentence Because the jaguar is an apex predator and is not preyed upon in the wild, threats include loss and fragmentation of habitat and poaching ... is plain WP:SYNTH, as this connection of ecological role as a reason for threats is unsourced and not stated anywhere in the sections. Habitat loss does not only threaten apex predators, but EACH and EVERY organism living in the jaguar's habitat, no matter of its place in the food chain. And being preyed upon is NOT a threat. A threat is always and only human-induced: killing, planting snares, logging forests for conversion of land use. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, the original sentence in the lede read It is threatened by loss and fragmentation of habitat and poaching for trade with its body parts. My change read: Because the jaguar is an apex predator and is not preyed upon in the wild, threats include loss and fragmentation of habitat and poaching for trade with its body parts.

I do entirely agree, with your words regarding habitat loss. I merely added the phrase " apex predator " which is contained in the article text and the explanatory phrase " is not preyed upon in the wild as a way to explain the meaning of "apex predator ", and to try to emphasize that human-induced killing, etc., etc., was the main threat. Above, you stated: "And being preyed upon is NOT a threat." For any creature, being preyed upon IS a threat!! What the heck are you thinking?? If an animal is a mouse, tapir, capybara, etc., "being preyed upon" is a threat!!! I did not make any sort of commentary about ecological roles, I merely added "apex predator " and a small definition of the term!! I am not responsible for any connection, present in the original lede sentence, to the best of my knowledge.

For the jaguar, "an apex predator", the main threat is a human-induced one, and I absolutely and totally agree!! So, is the jaguar an apex predator? YES.Does the definition of an "apex predator " mean that they do not have animals above them, in the wild (whatever type of animal they are), that can normally, on a regular and certain basis, overcome and kill them? YES. This is the definition of an Apex Predator. Human beings are the ultimate apex predator. We destroy habitat, from microbes up to and including large animals like jaguars. However, if you believe that the jaguar is NOT an apex predator, in the world before humans despoiled the Americas, AND that it is preyed upon in the wild, (by non-human influences and devices) then, by all means remove this erroneous information from this article and hundreds of others. Humans, by their depredations on creatures, from microscopic to large, are the ultimate Apex Predators. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Again : the jaguar is NOT threatened because it is an apex predator. And re the term 'threat' : read the definition at https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/threat-classification-scheme -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I think these two things should be separated in the lede Ddum5347 (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah...this excellent, short sentence, explains your objections perfectly! I understand your objections to "Because" and the link provided as a definition of "threat" makes perfect sense! I Will Not repeat my original edit. But please, may we add an explanatory phrase for Apex Predator? And make it clear that the use of "threat" in the lede is not the same meaning that most readers expect and understand? Per your link, this is a specific scientific usage of the word, and probably Will Not be understood most readers.

What if we say Although the jaguar is an apex predator, and is not preyed upon in the wild, it is threatened by the impact of human activity, including the loss and fragmentation of habitat and poaching for trade with its body parts. This summarizes information in the text, and makes clear, as we both have written about above, with varying degrees of passion, that human agency is what constitutes a "threat". Providing citations in the lede is frowned upon, so we can't include [2], but this allows us to provide a better explanation. Many people only read the lede, so that's our chance to make our case and provide information. I will make this change and hope it will be acceptable. Thanks so much for your helpful explanations! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Again : neither Because .. nor Although .. it is an apex predator, is it threatened!!!! Apex predator is an ecological role, which is NOT a reason for being threatened. Or explained as easy as possible : just do NOT use apex predator in same sentence as threat. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that "because" and now "although " are entirely inaccurate, inappropriate, etc., words....and I am sorry that I didn't understand. But honestly, I suspect that our readers (who are normal everyday people, and not scientific experts) may have the same misunderstanding, by considering apex predator to describe the attributes of the animal vs an "ecological role". Our WP article Apex predator states that an apex predator "...is a predator at the top of a food chain, without natural predators.", and this been the point that I have been attempting to make clear in the lede. More on this, later. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Re threats : the words 'human impact' are superfluous; impact is often understood as an effect of an effect, but some threats are direct and immediate : e.g. shooting wildlife or planting snares in forest. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, this makes sense.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

To illustrate the difference between effect and impact : see this image that shows the effect of deforestation, namely wasteland. The impact of this deforestation is that wildlife can no longer meet its needs – shelter and food resource – in this deforested land, the habitat is lost for wildlife. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, you have done an excellent job of explaining this! Even if you had to share an absolutely dreadful image, in the process. You have the ability to be a good teacher. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Bite force

The sentence The jaguar has an exceptionally powerful bite is 1. vague, as NO explanation is given re: in comparison to what? 2. erroneous : 5 species have a much stronger bite force at the canine tip, and 25+ species have a much higher bite force quotient than the jaguar. So there is 0 exceptional in the jaguar's biting capability. That this has been part of this section for xx years, is not necessarily a sign of quality. I therefore removed it again and instead : provided some sourced figures in the relevant section about characteristics. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC); amended by BhagyaMani (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, So much respect has always been given to FA and GA articles, and that they must remain in stasis, with no corrections. I considered had considered this to be important, and not to be challenged, as a FA. Per your well-reasoned explanation regarding "0 exceptional" , etc., I will withdraw on this point...thanks for explaining. Five months ago, I was bitten by a wild (North American) possum, and I can tell you, it had an extraordinary bite force, relative to it's size! It seemed that similar sized & types of animals should be compared...The ability to bite through a "turtle" carapace seems to be exceptional...oh well! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Image in Infobox

When this article was featured as a FA, it had this first image in the infobox :

Standing jaguar, image 1

which is very good, and portrays the jaguar quite well. Another high quality image is

Panthera onca, image 2

(2nd image), which I actually prefer, from an artistic standpoint, because of the color contrast...but it was not taken in the wild, not sure if that makes a difference. But, I Do Not prefer the (3rd image), which was the current image, before I changed it, as it has way too much background/surrounding area.

Jaguar, image 3

Plus, I don't think it is a good representation of the jaguar. Sorry if I have made a mess of this talk page, not accustomed to working with multiple images. Let me know your opinions, please! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Panthera onca, image 4

I prefer the 1st to the 2nd to the third, but funnily the resolution of the picture goes the other way. I agree with switching it back Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Femkemilene:, thanks for your opinion. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The third image is a featured image. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

LittleJerry, it is a lovely image! But the jaguar's body (excluding the crook of the tail) is only 28.6% or so of the image. If we could crop the extraneous bits, including the white foreground, and "fuzz out" the grassy bits...still, it is not as much of a close-up photo as image #1. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Number 3 is a pretty demonstration of disruptive coloration, but that does not make it a great box image - the jaguar is a fair bit harder to make out than in the other two. I would prefer number 1, for being bold and high contrast. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Elmidae, agreed, a good illustration of "camouflage", as you point out. Requiring the reader to hunt for the jaguar in the infobox image doesn't serve our purpose, IMO. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

All three are good images, but the first two illustrate the features of the jaguar better and are more suitable for an infobox image. I prefer the first as you get more jaguar for your pixel space. So for the infobox image 1 > 2 > 3. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What about image 4? Its closeup and is a featured image. LittleJerry (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I prefer image 1. As it shows the rosette pattern much clearer than all the others : how about moving this as the first in section Characteristics? And then the featured img 4 into taxobox? We can move the img of black jaguar into subsection on color variant. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I still prefer image 1 as the lead image. I work on a @6 x 9 iPad, so by size, etc., image #1 is clearer and shows the rosettes, large on body, smaller towards the head...easy to see. Still, I like image #4, and hope it can be included in the article. The gaping jaws are good, almost as good as the Hunting and diet "powerful bite" image. The problem with image #4 is the background colors, which are rather grayed out, in a small image and don't provide the color value contrast, as seen in #1. When the images measure @ 4 x 3 cm, as on an iPad (and smaller, I suppose, on a phone) it makes a difference. I don't know if this is a important consideration. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I, personally, prefer the first image as it shows the whole of the jaguar the best: head, fur, and build. The fourth image is nice, but doesn't show the build of the body as well. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

SilverTiger12, (Joke alert) Ah yes, if only Jaguar #4 would pose properly! "Please turn your head all the way to your left...chin up!...big smile!!" Click! "Now, stand up, same pose." Click! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Also good. Still slight preference for 1 - it nicely shows the "chunky" build of the species (as compared to leopards). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Elmidae, also, if we were to choose a reclining photo as the lead image, which I don't recommend, I would prefer #2, which illustrates the rosette size progression more clearly. As you note, a standing photo portrays the characteristic "chunky" body shape to better effect. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible contradiction between WP text and source?

Under the Hunting and diet section, [3]second paragraph, last sentence, we have: "However, this is disputed as even in areas were [sic] jaguars prey on reptiles, they are taken relatively infrequently in comparison to their abundance and mammals still dominate the cat's diet. (I corrected this minor spelling error.)

But the source (Abstract) states: "Reptile consumption is restricted to areas of high reptile abundance while dangerous or armoured prey is consistently preyed upon throughout the jaguar’s distribution, and selected even when their abundance is low.

It seems to me that our text contradicts the source. The abstract suggests that jaguars have a "consistent" preference (amongst reptiles) for "dangerous or armored prey", even "when abundance is low". Perhaps our WP text intended to state that jaguars prey on reptiles "relatively frequently in comparison to their abundance"?? Am I misunderstanding the comparison between reptiles in general, versus "dangerous or armoured prey"? It seems logical that jaguars would depend on mammals as their primary food source, but perhaps the other portion of the sentence needs rewording. Asking for enlightenment from more knowledgeable editors, who may have access to the scientific article. Many thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The "dangerous and amoured prey" are not reptiles. The full paper is here, look at pages 6-7. The abstract even states that "This questions the validity of the saurophagy [reptile eating] hypothesis". LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for providing access to the paper! In terms of the non-reptilian armored prey, this would be armadillos? On page six: Saurophagy vs dangerous/armoured prey hypothesis...."Our analyses showed xenarthrans and peccaries to be the most common prey in the majority of the studies, while reptiles made a marginal contribution to the prey species data."

Our article doesn't mention armadillos, (see page six) only giant anteaters, amongst the Xenarthrans. Should we mention armadillos, per page six?

Also, on pages two and three, it is made clear that both peccaries and giant anteaters are "dangerous prey", so that is very helpful. Thanks again, for answering my question and providing access to this source. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

ICUN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) terminology

Ddum5347, in the lede of the article, near threatened wikilinks to "near-threatened species". It appears that the ICUN uses this as a particular and specific term....and both "Near" and "Threatened" are capitalized in their system. Have a look at the infobox with the frog...you will see that they capitalize Near Threatened, Critically Endangered, Least Concern, etc. So, it seems that this is a specific term, presented in a specific way. I did not intend to revert you in the first place, my edit was caught up in an "edit conflict", I apologize! (I type very slowly because I can only use my thumbs, so the edit window is "open" for several minutes.) Let us see what others have to say about the convention of stating ICUN terminology, here on WP. Here is the ICUN [4] website. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. It's a bit inconsistent, since this is capitalised but endangered and the lower categories aren't. Ddum5347 (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ddum5347, Conservation Dependent and Least Concern are capitalized... Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

CD is obsolete. Vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered, etc. are not capitalised Ddum5347 (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree to using capital letters for all IUCN categories in prose, so that this spelling is consistent with spelling in taxobox. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

In most articles, this is not capitalised. Ddum5347 (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Jaguar "hotspots "

Here [5] we have this sentence: "The Paseo del Jaguar project (Path of the Jaguar) has been established to connect several jaguar hotspots." Would someone who has access to the source define "hotspots" in a more encyclopedic manner? Thanks. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile I read 3 articles about corridors, but did not find any mention therein about Paseo del Jaguar or Path of the Jaguar. Perhaps this is a local initiative in only one range country? Therefore, I removed this paragraph entirely and instead referenced the apparently first article about corridors between JCUs. I think that defining the term 'hotspot' is not important, but much more so the purpose of corridors. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, thanks for your work here. The undefined "hotspots" were much less useful than wildlife corridors. This sentence: These corridors represent areas with the shortest distance between jaguar breeding populations, require the least possible energy input of dispersing individuals and pose a low mortality risk. will make perfect sense to your scientific mind, but not so much to readers. It doesn't define the purpose of the corridors to non-scientists. The wikilink of "dispersing" leads to Biological dispersal which is a generalized article. Please add some specific information... gene pool, at a minimum, to define the purposes of the corridors for our average readers who unaware of scientific jargon/shorthand and cannot immediately make the connections. Thanks so much! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

BhagyMani I am asking that we make clear, to our readers, the specific manner in which the corridors benefit the jaguars. That's the purpose of corridors, and I am sure you can do an excellent job of explaining the specific benefits of corridors to this species. If you are too busy, I will try to do so...Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Conservation-> Approaches....Ecotourism

In this article section, there is mention of ecotourism related to jaguars, but entirely sourced to conservation of African cats.

This source discusses ecotourism related to jaguars and the Pantanal, and mentions the importance of nature-based tourism in Costa Rica, and the Galapagos etc., areas more geographically adjacent to the habitat of jaguars. Would some kind editor develop the ecotourism paragraph, so that it relates more specifically to jaguars? There may be better sources available to support this conservation approach. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Viable corridors....

In this section, next to last paragraph, last sentence [6], this sentence is confusing: "Seven of 13 corridors in Mexico are viable with a width of at least 14.25 km (8.85 mi) and a length of no more than 320 km (200 mi)." According to the Wiktionary link, viable is defined, under biology, as "Able to live and develop." So the sentence seems to state that corridors "with or (because of) a certain width and length are "viable " (able to "live and develop").

Perhaps it was intended to read "Seven of 13 corridors in Mexico, each of which possess a width of at least 14.25 km (8.85 mi) and a length of no more than 320 km (200 mi), were considered to be viable habitats for jaguars to live and develop."

That's a bit wordy, so I am trying: "Seven of 13 possible corridors in Mexico provide viable habitats for jaguars to live and develop. The seven corridors have a width of at least 14.25 km (8.85 mi) and a length of no more than 320 km (200 mi)." With both sentences, we define viable, with a simple phrase. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The article uses viable in the same way as the source. I don't think it means viable in that biological sense. The corridors don't have to be viable habitats (where they can live and reproduce), just sufficient to provide connectivity between fragments of viable habitat. It means they are viable as corridors rather than viable habitats. I can't access the article, but would assume the the corridors themselves are substandard as habitats but sufficient to allow jaguars to survive while passing through. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you understood correctly, Jts1882! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I replaced the word 'viable', as this seems to have caused some misunderstanding. The full text is available via academia.edu's cloudfront, which provides only a temporary link, alas. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Turtles" in lede

The sentence "turtles and tortoises" is redundant; tortoises are a type of turtle. That's like saying "break through the armor of crocodilians and alligators". Ddum5347 (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Nah, I think it's actually useful - makes the point that jaguars go after aquatic (turtles) as well as terrestrial (tortoises) variants, which is unusual in a cat and underlines the jaguar's affinity to hunting in water. Could be phrased as "aquatic and terrestrial turtles", but "turtles and tortoises" says it better. Usage, as you may be aware, is kinda mixed. This seems functional enough. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I think "aquatic and terrestrial turtles" sounds better. The more clicks you can save a reader, the better in my opinion.Ddum5347 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Elmidae. I fully agree that the initial 2 links should be kept. The more general statement proposed is not an improvement. Links to pages are offers to readers, and they can decide whether or not to follow them. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomen Lusitanicum

@Apokryltaros: lusitanicus is Latin for "Portuguese". It has nothing to do with the ancient Lusitanian language, which went extinct well over a thousand years before this book was written. --Lvovmauro (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I checked the source, which unmistakably states: Lusitanis Onza. Nomen Lusitanicum Onça. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and what I'm saying is "Nomen Lusitanicum" is Latin for "Portuguese name". --Lvovmauro (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead image

A discussion was held on this page in February, but those involved did not have the courtesy to tell me what was going on. I find it amazing that people with an interest in big cats and the reputation of Wikipedia would choose an image that is tiny in size, blurred and over-saturated. It shows false colours and any wildlife specialists will tell you it is misleading as the lead image. You also did not consider cropping my Featured picture for the infobox, you just ignored that it had been voted FP. And this is supposed to be a featured article! Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The image that was chosen was picked because it clearly showed the build and coat pattern of the jaguar, moreso than the other pictures. An FP is not required for an FA. I am not sure what you are talking about when you say it is tiny and blurred, because it shows up perfectly clear for me. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The background is blurred, but that is helpful for the infobox as the jaguar stands out more. The stocky build and rosette pattern are very clear. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This discussion was going on for a month and openly! So your complain about us not having the courtesy to tell you .. is futile. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Charlesjsharp, You should also mention that you chose to admonish and warn me, on my talkpage, here, because I made the agreed-upon-edit, which replaced your image.

(Removed interleaved cmt, placed here by Charlesjsharp, to the proper position, below my post)

I replied and explained the situation at 3:07, 1 July 2021, which is how you found your way here at 11:52, 1 July 2021. (You didn't tell me that the previous image was "your" FP.) I did explain that FAs and FPS are "different animals", to inject a bit of truthful humor. I also explained that "A FA is Not Required to be illustrated by a FP."

The image looks great on my device, the body, coat, patterns are clearly shown. However, the image in this article has undergone some changes, since the original photo. Perhaps you are viewing one of the unimproved versions? Here, we use the 2017 version, not 2005 - 2011 or 2012. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• I do not monitor discussions on every Wikipedia talk page BhagyaMani, nor does anyone, so saying my complaint is futile is a very silly thing to say. Charlesjsharp (talk)

• To monitor or not is YOUR choice and not a matter of our courtesy. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• The image does not look great on a high resolution screen, The image is only 727 × 501 pixels. The colours are not representative of the animal. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but it is clear enough on my screen. And I have no idea what you are going about, saying "The colours are not representative of the animal"... --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's impossible to monitor every page. WP has a Watchlist system, which allows you to see all edits on articles/TP that are important to you. We can chose a look-back period of up to 30 days. See Help:Watchlist for info. I think this would be helpful for you.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As stated above, the image was chosen for the infobox to illustrate features of jaguar and the low resolution image was best suited of those proposed. That doesn't have to be a permanent decision and that alternatives can't be considered. I had a look at other images of this male jaguar with this search and there are couple that might be worth considering (the second could be cropped). —  Jts1882 | talk  08:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Our vote for the present image is less than half a year old. And one guy coming too late is not a reason to re-vote, imo. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The second image has the same problem as File:Jaguar (Panthera onca palustris) male Three Brothers River 2.jpg. The first is better and I don't care whether we use that one or the current one. LittleJerry (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The resolution of those images might be good, but at thumb size they all illustrate the advantages of disruptive coloration. I prefer the current infobox image and agree with BhagyaMani. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with BhagyMani. Plus, this is not only "one guy coming too late", it is photographer Charles J. Sharp, advocating for their own FP as the lede image...hard not to suspect some bias in their choice. While I like the first image, for good color/value contrast between the jaguar and surroundings, the foliage is distracting (as noted by SilverTiger12) and the cat occupies only @ 49.5% of the photo. Current infobox image is @ 64%, and the background is blurred and not distracting. So, I still prefer the current image. Also, there's a sense of "powerful personality" here, that's hard to define...the shoulder position, the head lowered, ears forward, eyes staring at the camera, jaws agape. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

International Jaguar Day

Since this article has been recently revised and deemed satisfactory for current FA standards, I think it should be nominated for the main page for November 29 which is International Jaguar Day. LittleJerry (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Good idea! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation of word at top

UK: JAG you uh US: jaGWIRE

Why is the IPA missing from the article? Non-English speakers will be confused since Americans say it in a completely different way. --150.143.69.5 (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

objections to citation in "distribution" part

What exactly is so wrong about the citation, I just don't understand. I have cited the NatureServe page as described on the website itself, and it is both a WP:RS and is relevant to the statement before it. What am I doing wrong exactly Monserrrr (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it was removed due to the lack of {{cite web}} and as redundant as it already has a source. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 15:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks Tbhotch for pointing this out! – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Excellent!

Stunning photographs and a wonderful and very informative article. Great to read a page and learn something new. Well done to those who wrote it. Giano (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Giano might you keep it watchlisted per this? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Featured article coding discrepancy

Hi, as some of you might have seen, there was an issue I attempted to resolve as part of the introduction for when Jaguar was the featured article on the 29th of November 2021, user —  Jts1882 | talk advised me to write in the talk page. The issue was resolved when I inserted the title (Panthera Onca) into the the bracket (US: /ˈdʒæɡwɑːr/ UK: /ˈdʒæɡjuːər/)... The reason I attempted to resolve this was because in the mobile app the view for the main page looked like this :

The jaguar ( ) is a large cat species and the only living member of the genus Panthera native to the Americas.

So by merging the text such as (US: /ˈdʒæɡwɑːr/ UK: /ˈdʒæɡjuːər/ Panthera Onca) it removed the bracket entirely to read....

The Jaguar is a large cat species....

So the issue is to do with when the article is moved from it's setting into an introduction/preview such as on the main page, the coding was then altered and needed to be amended, otherwise the page is stuck with an empty bracket when reproduced elsewhere. Cltjames (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You can see the problem using the preview feature. Just place the mouse over Jaguar here and you will see the empty parentheses. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The manual of style says to avoid adjacent sets of parenthesis (MOS:PAREN). One solution would be to include both in one set of parentheses and use a semi-colon. Another would be to rewrite in some way to avoid the adjacent parentheseis: "The jaguar (pronunciation stuff), Panthera onca, is ...". Thoughts? —  Jts1882 | talk  16:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, YOU are the template wizard! This seems to be a common issue that everything in {{}} doesn't show in popup preview, i.e. when just hovering, nor in DYKs. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC) That's why I suggested to move the pronunciation into taxobox as alt_name. This may not show there in popup preview either, but at least you wouldn't see empty space separated by a ; in the text itself. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Re your question in edit summary re semicolon : in popup preview it looks like this : ( ; ). – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that. Perhaps we are using different previews. I'm using the default Page Preview, so I assume you are using the navigation pop-up gadget. I note that Cltjames initially tried introducing the semi-colon and then reverted it, so I assume this didn't fix the front page preview either.

The Page Previews removes all parentheticals (see here and T91344. This also removes the scientific name (which Navigation popup doesn't). The IPA templates seem to be the cause of the problem. They use span elements with the classes IPA nopopups noexcerpt, which suggests special handling by at least one of the popup methods. For some reason they interfere with the parenthesis stripping.

Your use of the {{--)}} template was interesting (I assume this fixed the Navigation popups display for you). When I paired it with {{(--}} I could see the scientific name in the Page Preview.

This is all very difficult to test as you have to save the edit to see the effects. Even if there is a fix, the use of adjacent parenthetic terms violates MOS:PAREN, which is not good for a featured article. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean the popup preview when hovering over the link to Jaguar on my watchlist : whatever is in within the template {{}} brackets does not show in any page preview, be it the IPA template, the {{cvt}} template .. This one {{--}} only adds an empty space, i.e. has basically the same function as 'nbsp;'. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Navigation Popup gadget

Page Preview (default)

OK, think I see what you are seeing with Navigation Popops. I assume you have navogation popups enabled (Preferences>Gadgets) and you see something like the image on the top right rather than bottom right. The template is ignored. In page previews the parentheses returned by the template are visible. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this gadget enabled; today's DYK contains 2 {{cvt}}s, which in the popup are displayed empty. I do NOT mind this at all. Some DYK editors resolve this by removing this template + writing figures without. But for the IPA template : my suggestion to move it to taxobox seems to not find support? I suggest to let this rest until and unless somebody else complains. Or can YOU solve this issue generally for all the templates ? – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The solution has to be in the gadget or wikimedia software. I think it's important to fix the appearance in Page Previews, as that is served by default. None of the DYK or OTD links have an issue on Page Previews. Navigation Popups is opt-in for experienced editors and lots of other pages have the problem.

As the IPA templates are the cause of the problem, moving them seems the best solution. Where would you put them in the taxobox? Or is it sufficient to have them in the etymology section? —  Jts1882 | talk  11:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO would indeed be sufficient to have both IPAs in the etymology section only, as I think pronunciation is NOT important in the lead. But some other editors may have a different opinion? – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It's unprecedented to put IPAs in taxboxes. LittleJerry (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2022

The jaguar's name comes from the Tupian (a language family of South America) word yaguara (meaning one which kills with a single leap). ( https://factslegend.org/jaguar-facts-40-facts-school-project/#comment-1332 also from https://www.wwf.org.uk/learn/fascinating-facts/jaguars and https://www.natgeokids.com/uk/discover/animals/general-animals/jaguar-facts/.) In Spanish language, the Jaguar has a nickname called el tigre. Jaguars are widely inhabiting New Mexico and southern Arizona south toward northeastern Brazil and northern Argentina. (Source https://animalia.bio/jaguar) 73.222.62.116 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The websites are not needed, and similar statements already referenced. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Panthera onca palustris

Hello everyone I just add the subspecies so yeah that fine now. PeaceAndGood (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

Add previous distribution in Louisiana; NatureServe and the Colorado source both corroborate this 149.119.162.130 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article already states n the 19th century, the jaguar was still sighted at the North Platte River in Colorado and coastal Louisiana. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread the edit history. As a source, one could use the NatureServe jaguar page, which is cited as follows: 149.119.162.130 (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Jaguar (Panthera onca palustris) male Three Brothers River 2.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 20, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-08-20. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 11:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The jaguar (Panthera onca) is a large species of cat and the only living member of the genus Panthera native to the Americas. With a body length of up to 1.85 metres (6 ft 1 in) and a weight of up to 96 kilograms (212 lb), it is the largest cat species in the Americas and the third-largest in the world. The distinctively marked coat features pale yellow to tan fur covered by spots that transition to rosettes on the sides, although a melanistic black coat appears in some individuals. Its powerful bite allows it to pierce the carapaces of turtles and tortoises, and to employ an unusual killing method: it bites directly through the skull of mammalian prey between the ears to deliver a fatal blow to the brain. This male South American jaguar was photographed in the Encontro das Águas State Park, in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso.

Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

Recently featured:

• The Hunting of the Snark
• Glyphoglossus molossus
• Omega Nebula

Keystone species

The lead section mentions the keystone species status as a fact. But the Ecological role section says that the status is disputed. --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 19:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Mammals

Jaguar#Jaguar Conservation Units: The source talks about 1,500 mammal species. --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 14:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The jaguar has the STRONGEST bite of any cat--stronger than lions and tigers. Please correct this. Thanks. 😀

Please correct this article. The jaguar's bite is STRONGER than that of lions and tigers. The article incorrectly states that it is third behind lions and tigers. 2601:CE:4001:9F90:2C61:9864:A5C3:838 (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Denied. You are incorrect. See previous talk section re: Bite force. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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:

• 3 Jaguars killing a Caiman, Parque Estadual Encontro das Águas Thomas-Fuhrmann.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Jaguars’ Diet

Jaguar diet is much more broad then what is presented, no need to add a whole list but with recent predation evidence on both marine and river dolphins aswell as water buffalo i think their diet should be revisited.2600:4040:7588:400:78FA:9EAD:9A17:8190 (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

As soon as you provide a WP:SOURCE, please do. However, water buffalo are not native to the New World.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.reddit.com/r/HardcoreNature/comments/13bvkcr/have_you_ever_wondered_about_the_strength_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1

This Link Shows The First Documented Evidence of an Jaguar Predation “Attempt” On A Feral Water Buffalo. Water Buffalo are not native to the new world yes but that doesn’t mean they are not there and roaming in the wild they were introduced when europeans arrived.New Evidence is being discovered everyday about these rare cats we know little about. 2600:4040:7588:400:E46B:8EBF:3890:CCFA (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. Mr Fink (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge/redirect North American jaguar and South American jaguar into this article

As the title says. I am proposing a merge/redirecting of both North American jaguar and South American jaguar into this article, as they largely duplicate the species article and keeping the three separate is essentially a duplication of effort. Neither the North nor South American populations are really discussed as different populations in scientific literature, nor are they historically different subspecies- when split, there's quite a few jaguar populations, not a neat separation into northern and southern. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Agree and support – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Disagree and decline; a lot of the very useful information in both articles would get deleted due to the FA status of this main one. Chumzwumz68 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC) Sockstrike. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Do you not understand the meaning of "merge"? BhagyaMani (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Chumzwumz68 Which information exactly? Aside from geography, if a main difference between the North and South American jaguars is size, in that the latter are bigger than the former, then that's already in the main article. Much of what is in these 2 articles can fit into the main article, if not exactly everything. Leo1pard (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Agree to merge or redirect to the main article. Leo1pard (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC); edited 07:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Redirect: but the North American jaguar article contains lots of information on jaguar conservation in the US. I propose moving it to a new article Jaguars in the United States. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  There's only four paragraphs, not that many sources; I don't see why it couldn't be summarized in the main article in fewer words. As it is, given how rare jaguars are in the USA, I feel like an entire article about them there would be massively WP:UNDUE. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  It has more than that. The "conservation" section is US-centric. Their are 12 paragraphs total related to US jaguars or at the US-Mexican border. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  I was referring to the conservation section of the North American jaguar article. Perhaps the main article's Conservation section can be rewritten to be more balanced and still include the major points of jaguar conservation in the USA. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  My sandobox shows there's enough text for an article. LittleJerry (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Went ahead and redirected. Four against one. LittleJerry (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani, LittleJerry, and SilverTiger12: If we are going to have an article about jaguars in the United States, then I ask what was the point of merging North American jaguar to the main article? Leo1pard (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the need for the jaguars in the USA article- it's mostly overly detailed reporting of jaguar sightings and a few paragraphs of conservation. Remove the sightings, and there isn't much reason to keep it. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I think so too + agree to the redirect > Jaguar main page. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC) But also think that the subsection *Former range* can be trimmed considerably. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Because the US is not the entire North American continent and 99.9% of North American jaguars do not live in the US. LittleJerry (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Guys, there's enough information for an article on Jaguars in the United States. We have articles on Wolves in Ireland and Wolves in Great Britain. If you object, do a request for deletion. LittleJerry (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Except there isn't- there was a mass of overly granular, entirely undue reporting of jaguar sightings in the USA and some stuff about conservation. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Typo in Distribution and Habitat

The first two sentences of the section read “ In 1999, the jaguar's historic range at the turn of the 20th century was estimated at 19,000,000 km2 (7,300,000 sq mi), stretching from the southern United States through Central America to southern Argentina. By the turn of the 21st century, its global range had decreased to about 8,750,000 km2 (3,380,000 sq mi), with most declines in the southern United States, northern Mexico, northern Brazil, and southern Argentina.”

however, the “turn of the 20th century” would have been 1899, not 1999. The source confirms that this is the case. 63.155.19.132 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2024

I would like to add that the jaguar is the national animal of Guyana, South America. Speeddemon0786 (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

that's already in the article Cannolis (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Historic Range?

A ton of sources from between the revolution and civil war suggest they lived further North than this map suggests. We have reports of them in the Colorado Rockies and Ohio valley. Even if it’s not heavily confirmed maybe we could do what the Lion map does and add question marks(European Lions are confirmed to have lived in Greece and Macedonia and Thrace, but Italy, France, and the Northern Balkans are disputed so it’s marked with a question mark).

I also want to note(and this goes for a ton of new world animals) that a lot of the ‘historic range’ info is calibrated to anywhere from the late 1600s to early 1800s depending on when Europeans showed up there, which is in the back half of the little ice age. Their native range during a warmer climate like the Medieval Warm Period or Post Industrial Era without humans would thus be more North and/or south.

Also also, species ranges tend to slowly fissile out the closer to the edge you get, density drops. So for species with smaller populations and very little excess to spill out it drops off fast and the range is smaller, while if they were thriving more would be living in the suboptimal fringe.

To cite both of these together, though I don’t have my sources so I’m gonna use another animal, American Crocodiles live in the Everglades. Pre-significant human activity they likely reached up to Tampa even in the cooler climate of that era as it could support small numbers of them despite the suboptimal climate. Today the climate is warmer and they’re slowly spreading up to just south of there(Urbanisation is a wall) despite the population issues as the climate issue is no longer present. If both issues are present(cooler climate and humans hurting the population directly and via habitat loss and invasive species) they can only barely hang on in the Everglades. If only one is present they can handle the whole southern tip and sprawl as far North as Tampa. If neither is present (for example Medieval Florida, warm period, minimal humans) they likely solidly inhabit the whole south of Tampa area with sprawl of low density populations up to the Panhandle and as far west as Louisiana.

There were probably small populations of Jaguars as far North as Ohio and Colorado, they would have been more prominent in a warmer period, early 1800s was just ad the little ice age wrapped up. We have Louis and Clark era sources 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:4CCB:BE12:31B3:BF07 (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

factual error about bite force in description section

" It has powerful jaws with the third-highest bite force of all felids, after the tiger and the lion." The source cited for this sentence does not say that jaguars have the third highest bite force of all felids. Jaguars are tied for the highest estimated bite force quotient with spotted leopards (137 BFQ). Tigers have 127, lions have 112. Table 2 in the results section in the cited source should show this. Here's the link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1564077/ Emereak (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)