Talk:Sunda clouded leopard

Photo Edit?

What's with the image? It looks edited. Syphe (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Valuable open-access article

Clouded leopards, the secretive top-carnivore of South-East Asian rainforests: their distribution, status and conservation needs in Sabah, Malaysia. The article and its images are all CC-BY 2.0. Too bad there are no photos.--Pharos 07:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why is it that there are a lot of species that do not have articles, but when a new species is discovered an article goes up about it within a day? Dixonsej

I would have thought that that is because the discovery and publicising of a new species attracts a lot of attention, which both prompts people to edit Wikipedia and provides an easy supply of references for articles. As for those species without articles, be bold and start articles yourself! Bondegezou 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's wikipedia for you. And to echo the previous response, your questions was self-answering.Beetlecat 18:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with all of you: there is no species of predatory mammal that has no article. On the other hand, there are dozens of new species of insects described each day that don't. Large and furry does it, not newly discovered.complainer (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Georges Cuvier

Did Cuvier identify it as Neofelis diardi or as Neofelis nebulosa diardi? What is the background of this, considering that the recent research confirming two species is only from 2006?--Pharos 17:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah... a bit of "how to read" is in order. The parenthesis around the authority indicate that the author didn't describe it with this name, but that the species was later moved to the current name. However, you can not tell what Cuvier named it. The authority doesn't attach to the current name, but to the initial description of the species. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A good example of the history of a species can be gleaned from its synonyms. See Lion-tailed Macaque for such a listing in the taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The parentheses mean that when Cuvier named it he placed it in a different genus (presumably either Felis or maybe Panthera) and it was subsequently moved to a separate genus (Neofelis). According to the trinomen article, subspecies weren't used much until after 1900, so Cuvier probably recognized N. diardi as a full species. --Aranae 18:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Earlier names I've found are Felis Diardii or Felis macrorcelis or Felis marmota (the last I read elsewhere; of course all these came from before the separate species were identified). The animal was also called "Diard's Cat" and the Sumatran name is "Rimau dahan".--Pharos 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put the other Latin names as "synonyms" here, as well as at Clouded Leopard. I hope that's the proper practice.--Pharos 18:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

diardii is clearly a synonym for diardi, but not of nebulosa. Felis macrocelis Horsfield, 1825 is a synonym of nebulosa (but again, not of diardi) according to MSW. Without a type locality I wouldn't know how to deal with marmota. All of these synonyms will apply to only one or the oher and should not apply to both articles. --Aranae 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

I've put a couple of prints at commons:Neofelis diardi. The animals are marked "native of Java", so I thought they would represent Neofelis diardi. The image I've placed on this page is notably grayish, per the description.--Pharos 18:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no problems with this. Given the fact that the other species did not live in Java (I think so), then the animal in the picture is definitely a Bornean Clouded Leopard. Nishkid64 20:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On Friday, Toronto Star had an image announcing this discovery on the 2nd page of the news section. But I don't know if this image is simply a normal leopard or a Bornean clouded leopard. Either way, that image is from Reuters Photo as stated on the newspaper. When I go to Reuter's website and conduct a search on this image, it only presents me a text article but no image. To make long story short, I found the image on another website and you can see it here http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_01/leopardR1403_600x463.jpg. Now the question is, who holds the copyright of this image?

OhanaUnited 05:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the same image used in the The Economist article and is N. diardi. --Aranae 05:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all the recent images in the media are all from a World Wildlife Fund press release (see here for the image you cited). It also appears that most "clouded leopards" at international zoos (or at least American zoos) are Neofelis nebulosa, as they are part of a breeding project with Thailand. No, I suppose it's not going to be easy getting a free photo.--Pharos 06:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no cloudies in Java... The illustrations for diardi(i) in Jardine are misidentifications (from Marbled Cat skins) caused by a "false lead" from Cuvier's statement re. Java and the Edinburgh skins being ID'd on that geographic basis. However, Jardine states clearly that there appeared to be a problem with the difference in size between the skins of the cats used as a basis for those engravings (diardii) and the text description given for the species. I've replaced the illustration for the time being with the correct species (Rimau-Dahan/macrocelis) from Jardine, plate 9, taken from Horsfield's original illo. in 1825.--Harami2000 06:37, 19 March 2007 (GMT)

Yeah, I had sort of figured that "Java" was a general colloquialism for the East Indies islands. Thanks for clearing this up, and for pointing out the historical error. By the way, is it clear that the new plate you've put up is from an insular specimen?--Pharos 06:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"In theory", "Java" should mean Java... There are still a few questions that I cannot answer re. the original type specimen for diardi, nor do I have the correct edition of Cuvier (or Griffith's translation from that), alas. Must admit I was rather slow on the uptake given that this is "old news" in the scientific press (end-2006). The plate and original text description for the Rimau-Dahan in Jardine (Temminck's macrocelis, at that point in 1834) are from Horsfield, relating to a Sumatran specimen held by Stamford Raffles. It was unclear then whether nebulosa (unillustrated in Jardine) was a separate species or not (footnoted; "Felis nebulosa of Griffith, if proved to be distinct, will be closely allied; but we cannot yet state what may be its distinctions."). It doesn't get any less confusing 100+ years further down the line... Trust that's of some use for now, anyhow.--Harami2000 07:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like all sources point to the WWF image. So then we cannot upload this picture as the copyright is retained by WWF, correct? OhanaUnited 15:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there's a fair use justification; this isn't some unheard-of animal, we really should be able to get a free photograph. We just haven't found one yet.--Pharos 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken reconstructions removed

• 
• 

I've now removed these from the article, per Harami's apparent knowledge on the matter. It was probably confusing for most readers anyway. The prints are still on the Commons page, and I suppose might deserve going into the article again, if someone knowledgeable ever decides to write a section on the mistaken reconstruction, and its significance in the study of the cat.--Pharos 04:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What is new?

Jardine lived in 1874. The illustration, is therefore at least 132 years old. The caption says "Felis diardi", which seems to indicate that he already considered it a specious of its own. Other than the changed genus name, nothing has changed. So what are we celebrating? — Sebastian 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Back then, they did not have conclusive proof that it was a separate species. So, they classified it as a sub-species. The Clouded Leopard is an endangered animal, and it is only since December that they have officially reclassified the Bornean Clouded Leopard as a separate species. Nishkid64 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

At the time of the drawing was made however, I'm not certain there was any clear idea even that there were two sub-groups. "Felis diardi" was probably just an earlier name used for both; in fact, it's possible that the mainland Asian variety wasn't even known to European scientists when that name was first given.--Pharos 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think any brand-new discoveries on species in today's world, espically mammals, is at least mid-importance FinalWish 01:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a fair assessment. Nishkid64 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Colloquial names

Someone added that this has been called "Diard's Leopard". I find no evidence of this, and have removed it; the feline was however historically called "Diard's Cat". Just posting this here in case I missed any evidence.--Pharos 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I too found no evidence suggesting it was also called "Diard's Leopard". Google hits show nothing for "Diard's Leopard", but show ten for "Diard's Cat". Nishkid64 20:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This species has been given/suggested a new name: Sundaland Clouded Leopard or Sunda Clouded Leopard, see sources: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/14519/0 and http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/4/1/15 195.222.116.201 (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Emmenaar

Who Where When How

I'm just something of a casual observer but as such I guess I represent the average reader.

The questions I have after reading the article are:

Who "discovered" this

Where was it "discovered"

When was it "discovered" (other than the oddly ambiguous 1800's guy reference and old sketch)

How was it "discovered"

For what it's worth, these are the things I thought the article lacks. I guess it could be that these aren't notable enough or whatever. I was just curious and know this could very well be a featured article very soon since so many people are working on it. -- JohnCub 00:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not even close to a featured article. Also, some of the questions you asked have been covered in the article. Some of the information is a bit foggy (such as "when was it discovered", as you stated), because there are not that many references on the subject at this moment. Some of these questions may not be answered in full extent since no one really knows the answer. In any case, we're looking for sources of information on this "new" species. Nishkid64 17:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Weight

I think something's dodgy here. Is it really 50 pounds? A leopard's gotta be bigger than that.Wai Hong 12:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Article says it is a medium sized cat, mainland version only gets to 44 pounds, and Despite its name, the Bornean Clouded Leopard is not closely related to the leopard. JohnCub 13:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I added weight and size with a reference twice. WAS 4.250 22:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Discovery

There seems to be a lot of confusion both here and in the media about the details of discovery/description of this taxon. I thought I would try and clear this up, though I will admitting that I don't know a few of the details.

• 1821 - Edward Griffith describes the Clouded Leopard from China. He described it as Felis nebulosa.
• 1823 - Georges Cuvier describes the Bornean Clouded Leopard from Borneo. He appears to have described it as Felis diardi. The decision to call the two distinct species was probably based on the differences in coat coloration. It may have been due to poor communication and not an intent to call them distinct, though it looks like Griffith and Cuvier did read one another's work. The status of subspecies did not enjoy any real usage at this point in time so one should not read too much into Cuvier's decision to call it a species instead of a subspecies. Felis diardi will often be mispelled as Felis diardii.
• 1867 - John Edward Gray places the clouded leopards into their own genus, Neofelis.
• Sometime between 1823 and the early 1900s (probably closer to the latter) - Neofelis diardi is considered to be a subspecies of Neofelis nebulosa. The morphological differences were known, but think Siberian Tiger vs. Bengal Tiger vs. Sumatran Tiger.
• 2006 - Researchers determine that the amount of genetic difference betwen the two forms of Neofelis is comparable to that found between other species of cats and is greater than what's usually found between subspecies. They conclude that Neofelis nebulosa diardi should be elevated to full species status, Neofelis diardi.
• 2007 - WWF issues a press release concerning the 2006 paper that results in the current media attention.

Please feel free to correct any errors or fill in any gaps in this timeline if you are aware of them. --Aranae 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any of that information in the article. If you could find sources for that information, we could significantly expand the taxonomy bit in the article. It's a good deal of information, and all we need is references. Nishkid64 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's all from wikipedia and Mammal Species of the World 3. What's here can be inferred from the dates associated with the various taxonomic names. As well as the 2006 and 2007 references that are already here. --Aranae 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether macrocelis (now diardi) and nebulosa were indeed the same species was left open to debate in Jardine (1834) and never coherently addressed in the following 100-odd years despite recognition of the differences in patternation. There was considerable confusion re. diardi, though, with the illustrations in Jardine being derived incorrectly from Marbled Cat skins (see above). --Harami2000 06:47, 19 March 2007 (GMT)

Very interesting. Frankly, I'm surprised we've finally found someone knowledgeable about this topic. It would be great if you could explain all this in the article better. Thanks.--Pharos 07:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Would be fun to explain all that in non-confusing terms! I'm still waiting to see whether I hear back re. the original source for diardi and steering clear of any "original research" for lack of that data, but will check back on the article as required. The whole backstory also throws up the interesting observation that those 'mistaken reconstructions' and text description for diardi in Jardine (1834) actually pre-date that given for the species they depict/describe; viz. 1837 for the Marbled Cat.--Harami2000 08:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I just discovered this quite informative blog post on the topic.--Pharos 13:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting blog, Pharos. Thank you! Glad to read I'm not the only dissenting voice on the species naming. Indonesian Clouded Leopard is just as good as Sumatran (from the original type specimens), IMO, whereas Bornean is just plain PR spooled out thousands of times via the news channels and thus somehow deemed 'notable'. Anyhow; the reference for Raffles in that article should, I believe, be Raffles S. 1821. Descriptive catalogue of a zoological collection made in Sumatra. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 13:239-274 (page 251 to be precise). That citation for 1822 is, I suspect, a glitch that crept in and was repeated at later dates, but I can't guarantee that 100%. That vol. 13 equates to 1821 can be cross-checked against http://www.saxifraga.org/publications/magazine/article1.htm and others online. Raffles was indeed the first person to describe the clouded leopard in Sumatra, but he wasn't a "scientist". The author of the blog is obviously aware of other possible issues in that they relate to Cuvier "coin[ing] Felis diardii in honour of his student Pierre-Medrad Diard", whereas I've been told by one of the co-authors of the current scientific papers that the type specimen for diardii is believed still to exist (hopefully with a proper description of the distinctions!), not just a mere "coining". IMO, that's potentially "shaky ground" since Cuvier referred to Java which is out of range and named the species deliberately after Diard, whose specimens had been confiscated by Raffles for whom he and Duvaucel were working rather than permit those to be returned to Cuvier in Paris. Would be possible to conjecture that Cuvier just stated Java to avoid any further conflict with Raffles, but research is required to determine the validity of that claim (although personally I'd've thought that both a correct description of species distinctions and a valid type location are required to name a species!). All of this contrasts with the cast-iron, detailed description of macrocelis by Horsfield in 1825 (Zoological Journal, vol. 1, p. 542) which was from Raffles *actual* specimens collected in Sumatra, with the clear proviso that even a decade later (Jardine, 1834) there was still no decision as to whether Griffith's nebulosa was distinct or not (see quote above) far less the elusive "Javan" diardi(i).--Harami2000 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bornean(?) Clouded Leopard

aside: Does anyone know who "officially" titled this species the *Bornean* Clouded Leopard, or was that designation purely for publicity purposes? i.e. there is already a Sumatran tiger, therefore the Clouded Leopard was designated Bornean to avoid competition for the most charismatic megafauna within the former geographic designation? (cynic me?) The type specimen for macrocelis is definitely from Sumatra (Bengkulu to be precise) and that for diardi *must* be Sumatra, also, even though it was 'alleged' to be Java (repeated as 'fact' at least until 1939 in Pocock's definitive 'Fauna of British India'), given the travels of the relevant naturalists. For the time being, I'll put "or Sumatran Clouded Leopard" on the first line pending any *official* source, but that should be an adequate alternative name regardless and was, indeed, in circulation prior to March 2007. Thoughts? --Harami2000 12:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I suppose we'll have to look at that December 2006 issue of Current Biology (anyone have free access?). On the cynical side of things, I did notice that the WWF press release takes advantage of the name to promote the group's "Heart of Borneo" project. Not that it's not a good cause...--Pharos 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Kitchener et al. paper refers solely to Neofelis diardi without using any common name. The Buckley-Beason et al. paper largely also just refers to Neofelis diardi. It does at one point refer to "Bornean clouded leopards" but their study only used Bornean specimens and their use of those words seems to be in the sense of "clouded leopards from Borneo" rather than an attempt to christen Neofelis diardi with a common name. Bondegezou 15:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Wikipedia articles should be verifiable and not indluge in original research. If the only external sources we have call it a Bornean clouded leopard, then that's what we should call it, regardless of the fact that it is also found in Sumatra or our speculation that the WWF may have been biased in naming it. Bondegezou 15:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The WWF is in no way in charge of naming a species, four months after the relevant scientific papers; this being the impression currently given! If Wikipedia articles should be verifiable, where is the "official" source for Bornean Clouded Leopard? Lacking such an official source (if indeed one is required for a species' common name), the addition of a geographic prefix does not automatically make for an "official" name and any of the former subspecies pseduonyms are thus at *least* equally valid. Sumatran Clouded Leopard has been used in that context for the former subspecies in various sources both online and offline. For example, the 21st Century Tiger (i.e. co-funded by the Zoological Society of London) report dated 2005 at http://www.21stcenturytiger.org/projects/reports/Project1_FFI_Final_Report_2005.pdf clearly uses Sumatran Clouded Leopard as opposed to the adjacent textual reference to Malay sunbear which does not add a "Sumatran" prefix: this is no surprise as the type specimens for diardi/macrocelis originated from Sumatra, not Borneo.... For lack of any evidence that Bornean Clouded Leopard was in use prior to March 2007, the usage of Sumatran Clouded Leopard for the former subspecies name is at least as valid as a pseudonym in the current context. (This is not "indulging in original research", merely a statement of fact, I believe). Kitchener's paper, at least, in "Current Biology" sticks to scientific nomenclature with no proposal for the species common name. May I throw down the gauntlet in return to anyone who wishes to state that Bornean Clouded Leopard is the only correct common name form to evidence that usage *both* prior to March 2007 (for the former subspecies) and after March 2007 (for the currently designated species)?--Harami2000 17:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Common names are, just that, common names. There is no official source because there is no body charged with determining such matters. Nobody is in charge of them; all we have is usage. Everything I've seen about N. diardi as a separate species refers to it under the common name of the Bornean Clouded Leopard. A Google search for "Bornean clouded leopard" gives plenty of hits; one for "Sumatran Clouded Leopard" hardly gives any at all. Prior common names for when it was known scientifically as N. nebulosa diardi do, I agree with you, seem valid. However, as far as I can make out, it was generally known just as the Clouded Leopard, with various geographical descriptors used. Does the 21st Century Tiger report use the term "Sumatran Clouded Leopard" to refer to the full range of the species/subspecies, or just to the Sumatran population? If the former, then I agree that seems a valid citation for that common name. If the latter, it isn't. I am not stating that Bornean Clouded Leopard is the only correct common name, but I would like to see citations for alternatives. I don't see the need for evidence of the common name being used for the former subspecies. Bondegezou 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess we should trust WWF's naming because they categorize animals more often than we do, right?

Are we even certain that anyone is trying to give this a common name? Buckley-Beason et al. (2006) appear to be using Bornean clouded leopard in the sense of "clouded leopard from Borneo" and don't seem to be attempting to give it a name. They didn't look at animals from Sumatra. I'm also not convinced WWF is trying to name it either. Again, their interest seems to focus on their work going on in Borneo and seem to be referring to the Bornean population of clouded leopards. The genetic data seem to form the backbone of this discussion, and the Sumatran population gets pooled into it due to the Kitchener et al. (2006) paper (who don't attempt to use common names). Somebody somewhere had to have listed the conservation status of this subspecies prior to the current news frenzy and they presumably used a common name. I'm with Bondegezou in saying that there's no such thing as a formal common name for mammals. Bornean, Indonesian, or Sumatran all seem valid common names (all used in one source or another) to me. --Aranae 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes though, I do think "Bornean Clouded Leopard" should be considered the common name, to the extent that one exists. It is this name that has been used in hundreds of news sources all over the world. Yes, it does seem to have originated from a press release, but I guess that's just the way these things work — it does not seem likely, given all the publicity, that popular writers will adopt another name in the near future.--Pharos 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Aranae is correct that the DNA analysis hinges totally on three specimens from Borneo, with none from Sumatra, per http://download.current-biology.com/supplementarydata/curbio/16/23/2371/DC1/mmc1.pdf . It's debatable whether pelage alone is adequate to describe the range of a species nowadays, as opposed to further phylogenetic analysis including specimens from the Sumatran population. Anyhow, that aside, from a historic perspective the main hang-up over providing something approaching a *definitive* common name for diardi in an historic context appears to have been the uncertain status of those animals in the Malayan peninsula owing to data deficiencies. (Contrary to the above, the scientific community does provide a strong lead on reinforcing or directing common name(s) "of choice"; hence the likes of "Amur tiger" on the first line under the entry for "Siberian tiger"). Even the IUCN's Wild Cats Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan (ed. Nowell and Jackson, 1996) includes the Malayan peninsula for diardi although that still appears to have been "provisional" all the way from Pocock in 1939... Coming back to the point at hand, though, as agreed with Aranae, there is nothing to suggest that "Bornean Clouded Leopard" is any more "valid" than "Sumatran Clouded Leopard" or "Indonesian Clouded Leopard" and if the usage of "Bornean Clouded Leopard" derives solely a single NGO press release based on genetic analysis of Bornean felines without proper consideration for the species as a whole, repeating that common name alone without any other options, clarification, or even a possible "name controversy" section (with/without historical context) seems to me to be more media-driven than an encyclopedia should be expected to be. (aside: Nothing on the IUCN site yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to see "Indonesian Clouded Leopard" or "Diard's Cat" (works AOK for the manul!) in due course).--Harami2000 03:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the opening paragraph, hopefully to cover the points being made. I still feel it smacks of original research for us to be bandying around alternate names if we're not seeing them being used widely, but I've phrased the introduction to be clearer that the "Bornean Clouded Leopard" designation comes from a particular source. Bondegezou 11:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I do like that revised phrasing ("Neofelis diardi is... and publicised under the name Bornean Clouded Leopard by...") much better since that leaves things much more open for any future developments and clarifies precisely the nature of the nomenclature. Would personally give the thumbs up to anyone who might suggest that format as a standard for any "new" species/subspecies entries of this nature.--Harami2000 14:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• This species has been given/suggested a new name: Sundaland Clouded Leopard or Sunda Clouded Leopard, see sources: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/14519/0 and http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/4/1/15 86.95.67.5 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I'll make some changes regarding the name somewhere next week, if no-one else has done yet or has given a good reason not to. Greetings.

• The name has been proposed, lets wait a bit and see if it accepted. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is something that must be accepted by the zoological society first. Then a name change must come from a scientific reliable source like the Journal of Mammalogy. Then I would agree with a name change for the species. No different from when the Cougar's species name was changed officially from Felis concolor to Puma concolor.Mcelite (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why I used the name "Bornean clouded leopard" for the subspecies Neofelis diardi borneensis, rather than the species Neofelis diardi

See this. Leo1pard (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

"History of study" section needed

Come on, Harami2000, I could easily compile this from your talk page comments alone, but someone I think you'd be better qualified. Thanks.--Pharos 22:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservation status

Under WWF's link (http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/species/our_solutions/priority_species/clouded_leopard/index.cfm), they estimated the population to be around 10,000. So what category in the conservation status does it fit into? Threatened? OhanaUnited 06:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not for us to decide. That's for folks like IUCN to decide. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a very strange error that the WWF has actually linked to the IUCN page on the Amur Leopard there.--Pharos 12:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientists?

The Economist doesn't actually mention any scientist who challenges the status of the the species. It cunningly drops the name of the evolutionary biologist who has coined the term "species inflation", but thorough reading reveals that he doesn't say that it applies to the case in point. The Economist does its dirty job, which is arguing that economic development is more important than preservation and keeps at least to the minimal ethical standard of not openly lying; Wikipedia editors are invited to read its articles attentively, and do the same. --Complainer 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to remove some of the WP:WEASEL language in the Economist bit. However, I'm not convinced that we need this part at all. Alongside scientific journals, it seems to imply that there is scientific disagreement about this species. That may be, except, as the above comment notes, the Economist piece doesn't actually present any scientists disagreeing. So it appears that this is actually unattributed conjecture, and really not bringing any information to this Wikipedia article. — coelacan — 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, I don't think The Economist qualifies as enough of a domain expert to justify the inclusion of their speculation in the lead! A brief mention later on in the article might be reasonable to help ensure that all points of view are represented, but putting it in the lead gives their inexpert innuendo undue weight, in my opinion. Xtifr _tälk 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we seem to have a consensus on the matter: I'm removing the neoliberist ravings. --Complainer 11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

However, it should be in the article. The Economist is a respectable journal, and removing the entire quotation [1] is in my view not justified. Also, I dislike the neoliberist ravings, please be more careful in your wording. -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Economist may be a respectable journal (whatever that means) but, again, the content of their coverage does not actually link the Bornean Clouded Leopard with species inflation, it simply mentions both in the same article, as innuendo. We are under no obligation here to represent their statement if they aren't even drawing upon a primary source that explicitly makes the connection, and if they (as non-biologists) can't be expected to be a reliable primary source for that kind of assertion. As to Complainer's comment, editors here are obliged to act civilly toward one another, but Compainer did not say "you are a raving neoliberal". The statement may not have furthered this discussion, but it is a general opinion that editor may express, and not an attack against other Wikipedia editors. I don't presume to lecture you on policy, Chris, you've been here longer than I, and I admit that I may be wrong about this. It's just my opinion that we needn't be so careful to avoid offending people who aren't even here (the editors of The Economist). — coelacan — 20:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be at least a controversy section in the "The Economist" article.--92.118.191.48 (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Can we get a photo here? Drawings just don't cut it for me I'm afraid... --Candy-Panda 13:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Find one that doesn't have copyright issues. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bummer. I contacted WWF and Folke Wulf, who handles content reuse questions there,[2] kindly told me that they can't make their photographs available under a free license. — coelacan — 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to contact WWF to ask if they could point me to any of the photographers to contact directly about usage questions, but I didn't receive a response. This does unfortunately seem like somewhat of a dead-end. --Dajagr 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I had the same idea and I have now emailed one of the WWF-affiliated photographers, Alain Compost. He could be out in the jungle for all I know so it may be quite a while before I get any response. — coelacan — 04:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done some work on this too, including contacting the WWF — they must be impressed they've now received contacts from three separate Wikipedians :) Anyway, I also contacted the Clouded Leopard Project, and they very generously said they would be willing to help if they acquired an image (which might happen sometime in April). They also said there are no Bornean Clouded Leopards in zoos outside of Indonesia, which probably explains our difficulty.--Pharos 23:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's good news then! I guess we wait now. — coelacan — 04:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Tree leopard

I have read a 1947 reference to a "tree leopard" in Kimanis, Sabah - it was briefly seen on a rubber estate but disappeared back into the surrounding jungle. Is this likely to be the same animal as the Bornean Clouded Leopard, or are there other leopard/big cat species in Sabah? Jasper33 13:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's most certainly the same. The Felidae species in Borneo are:

• Neofelis diardi Bornean Clouded Leopard
• Pardofelis marmorata Marbled Cat
• Catopuma badia Bay Cat
• Prionailurus planiceps Flat-headed Cat
• Prionailurus bengalensis Leopard Cat
• Felis catus Domestic cat

- UtherSRG (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, that was quick! Thanks for that. Jasper33 13:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)