Talk:Asiatic lion

Did Dublin Zoo have a Persian lioness (literally)?

See this. Leo1pard (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the lead image be a better representation of the animal?

I've tried a few times to update the lead image to a sharp, full body representation of the male of the species, only to see the change reverted in favour of a different image, which is either not sharp, or captive or doesn't document the body properly. Want to propose this image as the lead.

Male in Gir Forest

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumeetmoghe (talk • contribs) 06:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Re-org of lead

Sorry for the rather abrupt recent edit of mine to the lead, but I don't believe my revision deleted any referenced material, but rather trimmed and reorganised - in particular to emphasise the historically much wider range of the population. I'd respectfully suggest that my version has merit, despite my breach of normal Talk Page discussion. Thoughts? - Snori (talk)

I see this is your first edit to the article, or at least your first in a looong time. So you may not know that the lead has come a long way, hence has also merit! Consider to add new info instead of reorganising to your own gusto. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

In a rather less drastic edit, I have now moved details of the historical range and names upward, and some other minor edits. - Snori (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy

@BhagyaMani:, "Panthera leo leo" is the scientific name for the Northern lion, not for the Asiatic lion. Starting the article by saying that the Asiatic lion is "Panthera l. l." is akin to starting an article "The standard poodle (Canis lupus familiaris) ..." instead of "The standard poodle is a hreed of domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) ...."

The Asiatic lion is a subgroup of the Northern lion subspecies, and that fact should be clarified in the first sentence of the article instead of pretending that "Panthera l. l." refers to the Asiatic lion alone. The Northern lion article explains the subspecies' subgroups in the following manner: "The Northern lion comprises four historically recognized subspecies, the Barbary lion, the Asiatic lion, the West African lion and the Central African lion.[2]," with the citation being to Kitchener et al. That's the explanation that I adapted to the beginning of the Asiatic lion article. If you believe that this explanation is misleading, then start the Asiatic lion article with "The Asiatic lion is a subgroup of the Northern lion (Panthera leo leo) ...", but the way that you have it right now is incorrect. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

P. l. leo is indeed the scientific name for Asiatic lion, just have a look at the reference provided!!! You seem to have overlooked the link to Northern lion provided in the section on taxonomy. In wikipedia articles, the common name of a species or subspecies needs to be followed by scientific name!! I suggest you familiarise yourself with terms like species, subspecies and breed. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

But the Asiatic lion is not the common name of the subspecies. It is the common name of a population of the northern subspecies of lion. AuH2ORepublican is right that it is misleading to put the subspecies name parenthetically after Asian lion when there is a simple and more accurate way of stating scientific opinion.   Jts1882 | talk  12:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

'Northern' lion is neither a common name for P. l. leo!! I haven't seen this term in ANY scientific publication about lion. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. There is not an established common name for either northern or southern subspecies, which makes the current wikipedia article on the Northern lion highly questionable. But that is not the issue here. The Asian lion population is not equivalent to the (P. l. leo) subspecies, a relationship that is implied by putting the subspecies trinomial in parenthesis after the name Asiatic lion. What needs to be said is the asiatic lion is a population or subpopulation of this subspecies.   Jts1882 | talk  13:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you please read the first sentence again? It does neither imply that Asiatic lion is a valid subspecies, nor that is the ONLY one. But unambiguously that it is a population. Agree on the questionable name Northern lion!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani:, the first sentence of the article begins "The Asiatic lion (Panthera leo leo)[3] ...." That is incorrect, as "Panthera l. l." is not the scientific name for the "Asiatic lion" any more than "Canis lupus familiaris" is the scientific name for the French bulldog. And while you are correct that the article by Kitchener, et al does not list "Northern lion" as the common name for the Panthera l. l. subspecies, it also is true that the article does not mention the term "Asiatic lion" at all. This is what the article says about the two lion subspecies:

"On the basis of these recent studies, we recognise two subspecies, although morphological diagnoses are currently unknown:

Panthera leo leo (Linnaeus, 1758).

Distribution: Central and West Africa and India; formerly throughout North Africa, SE Europe, the Middle East, Arabian Peninsula, SW Asia.

Panthera leo melanochaita (Hamilton Smith, 1842).

Distribution: Southern and eastern Africa."

So Panthera leo leo is the northern subspecies, and Panthera leo melanochaita is the southern subspecies. Whether the northern subspecies should be called the "Northern lion" is debatable, but one thing that is clear is that the northern subspecies *is not*, and *cannot*, be called the "Asiatic lion," for the simple reason that the northern subspecies also is found in Africa and historically was found in Europe as well. The "Asiatic lion" is not a subspecies of lion, but a mere population of the northern subspecies.

There is a Wikipedia article entitled "Northern lion" that begins as follows: "The Northern lion (Panthera leo leo) is a lion subspecies present today in West and Central Africa and in India.[2][3]" It is not incorrect to refer to the Panthera l. l. subspecies as the "Northern lion," while it is incorrect to refer to the subspecies as "Asiatic lion." If you object to the description of the Asiatic lion as a population of the Northern lion, then we can punt on the common name of the northern subspecies and begin the Asiatic lion article with "The Asiatic lion is a population of Panthera leo leo[3] ...." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyone interested in what has been discussed regarding a topic like this, and wishing to engage with me in this, please come here. If anyone does not want me to engage with me in this, then I prefer not to engage with that person, but that people should see what goes on there, as it may affect what happens here. Leo1pard (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

See also

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

Panthera leo persica

@Jts1882: Hi, as far as I know this name ("Panthera leo persica") has been the scientific Latin name of this subspecies. Which reference exactly are you referring to in revision? FaraM 15:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)