Talk:Cheetah

US FWS categorized Cheetahs as "Endangered"

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=A00S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amnesta (talk • contribs) 03:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Change?

The Introduction contains a contradiction that needs repairing. First it says the 'speed of Cheetah is unknown' then goes onto say how fast it is. This needs to be changed to "exact speeds are unknown" or/and "sources suggest it reaches up to 65mph". This page is protected so I couldn't make any changes myself.Bobbyfletch85 12:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've cleaned up some vandalism. Please sign your comments, and try to continue discussions on the same subject matter (i.e. speed) underneath the same heading. Slow Graffiti 07:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

While this page has a 'Cultural References' miscellenia section, it would be nice if people could refrain from assuming vandalism and reverting edits just because they refer to something foreign to the editor. 81.86.150.114 03:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reproduction and social life

I thought I better add this here just to let you all know. I've adjusted the section with the above name, it was rather messy (i.e. it was all one paragraph) and some parts were slightly incorrect. In my opinion more work needs to be done on it because there's so much that can go under that one heading, it really needs to be split up into sub-sections - like I did for "vocalisations" - and more info added in each. I'll try and get round to this in due time. Meanwhile any comments or issues with the changes, just let me know! Ben 09:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds?

Any info on the sounds cheetahs make? All I saw was a mention of purring, but I think they can "yelp" too when in danger. (unsigned)

afaik they rather "chirp", at least it appeared to me like this at BBC's big cat diary. --84.62.133.232 03:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added some information on their sounds under "Vocalisations". Hope this helps! Ben 20:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also reffering to the sound clips, perhaps we should rework the text for the link to the Russian zoo webclip. The way it's worded it appears that the Cheetahs are speaking Russian. Sonalchagi 21:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Replacing Image

I feel that the second photo in this entry(cheetah in Kenya) is of somewhat low quality(both in terms of resolution and the fact that it is slightly O.O.F.). I was wondering if it would be inappropriate to replace it with either of these photos, and if not, which one would work better in the article. Both photos were taken by myself and licensed under CC-Attribution ShareAlike. I'm somewhat new to this and want to make sure I'm not committing a grave sin by replacing another's photo with my own.

• 
• 

Schuyler s. 20:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do that. If the licence of the photos are adequate, and apparently they are, just go ahead and use them! :) ≈ Ekevu ^talk _contrib 17:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

How can I put this article to the Category:World_records and so as there it will printed something like "Speedest Animal"? (sorry for my English) Setti

---

Some genetic researchers were studying Acinonyx jubatus to find out why he had a high abnormal sperm count. They gave a group of these animals a histocompatibility (tissue-type) test.

"This is singular," observed one to the other. "Every one of these cats gave the same answers."

"Aw," drawled the other, "they're all a bunch of cheetahs!"

PierreAbbat

---

Does anyone have info on the Cheetah's Population bottleneck

---

It is the only cat that cannot completely retract its claws ..... Even completely retracted, the claws remain visible and are used during acceleration.

Isn't the above self-contradictory?

Sebastjan

Yes -- I edited this article and I should have spotted that. Jacquerie27

sort of, but less so if phrased: It is the only cat that cannot completely retract its claws ..... Even when maximally retracted, the cheetah's claws remain visible and are used during acceleration. -- Someone else 08:07 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

But "maximally" is a very ugly word and it's implicit in "when retracted" anyway. Jacquerie27

Ok, go for prettiness over clarity then. :) -- Someone else 19:08 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

I made it ugly again... Baboo 05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheetah Speed

The math on the speed isn't very accurate... I'm not sure which is right, but the units don't match up...

110kph = 68.31mph

96.54kph = 60mph

Gordon McCreight - Oct. 6 2004

The point made above is important (from the point of view of accuracy) and is related to the following point. My understanding is that experts believe the fastest "clocked" (documented) speed of a cheetah is close to 65 miles an hour. To push this up to 70 miles an hour is not good for an encyclopedia that aims for accuracy. Superlatives (such as "Guinness Book" numbers) tend to "drift" in the retelling, with a strong upward pressure that is largely unconscious in its exaggeration. Let's find authoritative sources to keep a rational ceiling on the natural tendency toward escalation of this fast cat's velocity. I would urge whoever is most involved in this article to edit the speed back down to 65 mph, until someone can identify an authoritative report of a quicker cheetah. Thanks. 65.223.141.108 17:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557976/Cheetah.html) has a much lower speed posted: 93 km/h or 58 mph Diploid 14:31, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)

The cheetah's speed is not the fastest of all terrestrial animals. A wildebeest stampede can reach speeds equal to that of a cheetah. The reason that cheetahs are so well known for how fast they are is because of their spectacular acceleration. The short bursts do reach the speeds that are mentioned above, but it is not true that they are the "fastest". It is more correct to say they have the fastest acceleration of all terrestrial animals. Having said that their top speed is nothing to scoff at as the cheetah is one of the fastest land animals, but I'm only saying that is is not correct to say they are the outright fastest terrestrial animal. My sources are the World Book Encyclopedia 2006, article: 'cheetah'(hard copy), and MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557976/Cheetah.html).

Although the wildebeest speed thing seems to be incorrect, if a faster animal is found the cheetah would be the quickest. Fast refers to top speed, quick refers to acceleration. --BHC 19:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The fastest scientifically measured speed for a Cheetah was recorded by Professor Craig Sharp of Brunel University (London, UK) in 1965, a figure accepted by Guinness; though the unit conversions are inconsistent: 64.3 mph or 29 m/s or 104.4 km/h (the latter two are a match, however 64.3 mph=103.5 km/h). I believe the imperial figure to be the original one, as not only it was mentioned first, but it seems that this figure was converted to meters per second with given accuracy, and further to kilometers per hour with a greater accuracy.

As for the Wildebeest, I've never seen a speed greater than 80 km/h (50 mph) in any respectable source. And the claim that the maximum speed is reached in groups, a stampede, rather than individually seems just absurd. Sounds like BS to me – or is it WBS? --Anshelm '77 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the absurdity. Yeah, sure they reach their maximum speed in groups.. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 07:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The speed was changed to the 70 mph figure. I changed it back to Sharp's figure. Also, where did the info on the acceleration and cars come from? A reference is needed. - Slow Graffiti 00:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

People have been messing about with the speed, I've just changed it from 80mph to 65, going by the reference I've cited, although it was km/h. If anyone changes it in future (although this shouldn't be necessary I hope!) please cite a source otherwise anyone could just type in any old nonsense. Thanks. Ben ^(talk) 22:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a cheetah expert but thought it's contradictory to say that cheetahs can do 0-70 in 3 seconds, while stating that the top speed is actually 65mph.Hoyun 11:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Queued images

File:04123 Cheetah in Tree.jpg

Thick brush

In the subchapter "Habitat" we read "thick brush". What's that? An habitat or the result of a vandalism? Manuel Anastácio 02:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Brush refers to a type of habitate somewhere between a light forest and a thickly grassed grassland.

Prehistoric Cheetahs

I read on a website that during the ice ages, there were giant cheetahs ranging from Europe into Central Asia. I was not sure if they survived in Mongolia or China or how recently. Please let me know if you find anything.

Speed

I was just watching animal planet and there was a charity event where two cheetahs pursued a dragged purple cloth. There was an officer with a radar gun clocking them (he was positioned so the cheetahs were running straight towards him), one cheetah recorded 58 mph the other 67 mph.

I'm also curious about cheetahs' max speed possible. The figures given by various sources don't converge, leaving a gap of over 10 mph from one end to the other. All the same, I admire very much the animal's stunning sprint which no other creatures on this planet could reproduce. - Lightdawn 03:54, 3 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Cheetah.org is the site maintained the Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF), an organization pushing cheetah awareness/conservation. They state that cheetahs can run 70 mph (112.7 km/h). They (led by a leading authority on cheetahs, Dr. Laurie Marker) are scientists who would obviously have sources for such a claim. The only 'shift' I can imagine is perhaps a shift to make it an even '70 mph' to the public, but I do not suspect this is the case.

Earthwatch Institute Journal has an article (in Vol. 23 Issue 1, and elsewhere) stating that cheetahs can reach 110 km/h (68.4 mph). If the cheetah.org claim is shifted, it could be based on the same data used here (as both are from the CCF).

In the Journal of Zoology, Sharp has an article devoted entirely to clocking the speed of cheetahs (1997, Volume 241, titled 'Timed running speed of a cheetah'). His conclusion is 64 mph (103 km/h).

I'm sure I've read other figures as well; I'll have to dig up those sources tomorrow. In any event, the current 62 mph claim used in the article is obviously low. Slow Graffiti 07:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

More references for cheetah speed - Hildebrand in the Journal of Mammalogy also came to the conclusion of110 km/h (68.4 mph) in 1959 ("Motions of the running cheetah and horse") and again in 1961 ("Further studies in the locomotion of the cheetah"). These are obviously older studies.

I am changing the article to read 64 mph (103 km/h) according to the Journal of Zoology referenced above. If a more recent source can be cited with a different speed projection, please fill the rest of us in here. - Slow Graffiti 01:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

From this discussion it remains debatable whether the cheetah is indeed faster compared to a wildebeest stampede: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildebeest#Stampede The wildebeest figure was given as 65 mph, but from the apparent lack of evidence (i.e. well-documented studies conducted on each species's maximum speed) supporting the wildebeest claim as compared to the cheetah's, this issue should remain open for now.Ming2020 09:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for integrating the information into the article. Well done. I hope some more reliable information becomes available in the near future. I'll be looking out. - Slow Graffiti 18:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Bottleneck Concept

These are the findings from which scientists assert the bottleneck idea:

"In 1981 Stephen O'Brien and colleagues from the US National Cancer Institute began an investigation in to cheetah breeding difficulties. Forty semen samples were taken from 18 members of the captive South African population and compared to those of domestic cats. Spermatozoal concentrations in the cheetah samples were found to be ten less tiomes than those of domestic cats. In addition, over 70% of the cheetah spermatozoa were morphologically abnormal, compared to only 30% in their domestic counterparts.

"To compound these problems a study of over 200 gene loci from South African cheetahs has revealed that the population contains ten to 100 times less genetic variation than other mammalian species. These data, O'Brien suggests, place the cheetah in a position similar to that of inbred laboratory mice, indicating a population bottleneck in its recent evolutionary history. This means that the cheetah population was, at one time, reduced to only a few individuals - from which today's cheetah population, leaving it less able to survive in the face of environmental change, disease or threats."

To further prove their inbred relatedness, unrelated cheetahs exchanged skin grafts. This allows monitoring of the Major Histocompatibility Complex, the "most polymorphic locus in vertebrates," which codes for MHC molecules - antigen-presenting glycoproteins present on T lymphocytes. These are responsible for recognizing foreign molecules in the body, such as skin grafts from another organism, and triggering an immune response. The acceptance of skin grafts from unrelated cheetahs far exceeded the acceptance among unrelated domestic cats (which is usually rejection).

Reference: Santer, R. (2001). 'Letting the cat out of the bag.' Biologist, 48: 72-74.

Summed up, the genetic variation among cheetahs is similar to that of identical twins. This explains the past (cheetahs experienced a population bottleneck, and are now descendents of the small surviving group) as well as the present and future (difficulty with reproductive success because of typical problems that come with inbreeding). Slow Graffiti 07:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Classification

I was tossing around the idea of filling out the 'Classification' section with actual taxonomic information (e.g. that in the 'Genetics' section), and moving all of the info about the word "cheetah" (as interesting as it is, it isn't a classification) to the intro paragraph. Any strenuous objections here? - Metanoid 20:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been preparing a completely reorganized setup for this page, using the Gray Wolf article as a standard (though its obviously got more information on it). I think a lot of the subjects here are mashed together in inappropriate places. Give me a few more days and I'll post details. One of the ideas - the "description" shouldn't spend all its time comparing cheetahs to other large cats (this should actually go with Taxonomy, probably, along with the Classification section). While it isn't exactly material for Taxonomy, I think the extended etymology of "cheetah" is inappropriate content for the introduction paragraph. Is there another animal page with such an extended etymology? Does it warrant its own section? - Slow Graffiti 02:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Reproduction and social life

The text reads: "The cheetah can live over twenty years, but their life is often short, for they lose their speed with old age. ... Life span is up to 12 years in wild, but up to 20 years in captivity."

• • There seems to be a disconnect between the life span in situ and ex situ. First the reader is led to believe that the life span can be as high as 20 years in the wild -- "for they lose their speed with old age."

Liz K.

King Cheetahs

The section needs a description of what a king cheetah would acyually look like. It only describes what it doesn't look like. Williamb 01:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

From the Description section: "Cheetahs also have a rare fur pattern mutation: cheetahs with larger, blotchy, merged spots are known as 'King Cheetahs'." Are operating on the presumption that a reader will read the whole article, or skip to sections of immediate interest? Should the description of King Cheetahs be moved from Description to King Cheetahs? I think so, especially since they are so rare. - Slow Graffiti 02:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is already a king cheetah article, so I have suggested a merge. Either that, or the king cheetah info needs to be moved from the cheetah article to the king cheetah article. Otherwise, redundancy exists. Synapopyse 03:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd propose that the separate article remain the main source, and the subject be briefly addressed here; not alone, but in a paragraph that mentions other possible colour variations. - Slow Graffiti 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The main article is a stub, anyway. I'd suggest merging it and making King Cheetah a redirect. Tigerhawkvok 22:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a separate article is warranted, given the detailed information about king cheetah spottings there. Too much detail for the main cheetah article. - Slow Graffiti 18:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think merging the King Cheetah article would just add to the jumble of information that's here already. What's in the main Cheetah article covers quite a lot of topics and I think seperating them up better organises the information. Ben 21:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the King Cheetah article should be merged with this one. The King Cheetah article offers no further information about the Cheetah species other than that it is a mutation. And if that's the case, it should have a section here since they are essentially the same animal. IanUK 09:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour of separate articles. Maybe have a link from here. I have old encyclopaedia entries with old sightings of king cheetah, and *possible* differences from a normal one. interesting enough, and with a historical and cryptozoology based search for the king cheetah having been undertaken, i think a separate article is called for. 70.20.103.225 05:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC). Whoops that was me talking Pradiptaray 05:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay... The King Cheetah article is totally redundant now..... Any reason not to change to redirect?--Marhawkman 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I added this image of the King Cheetah to both the cheetah page and the king cheetah page. --Cody.Pope 14:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge completed, 4 mths 1 year old, same wording and info, nothing to copy over. Nashville Monkey 22:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Pink Cheetahs

A recent edit of the article stated the existence of pink cheetahs. It wreaks to me of vandalism. In all my studying, I've never heard of such. The idea of the "cat of the sun" exists, but nothing else here. - Slow Graffiti 18:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably just a name, I mean PINK CHEETAHS, it just isn't natural. Maybe it's JUST A NAME.Atomic45 05:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody call Peter Sellers. Or Blake Edwards. Or even Henry Mancini. Trekphiler 02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Main Image (in Tax Box)

Where'd the SwiftCheetah.jpg image go? Why was it deleted? - Slow Graffiti 16:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Grammatically Incorrect

"Unlike males and other felines, females do not establish territories." This sentence seems to imply that a female is a type of feline (indicated by the use of the word, "other"). 15 August 2006

Although it doesn't really imply that to me, I've edited it to clarify "female cheetahs" rather than just females. Thanks for pointing that out. Ben 22:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The incorrect sentence actually implies that males are felines. Also, it implies that females aren't felines.76.217.91.94 (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Purring

conflicting statements in the article, are cheetahs the only big cats the purr or not? "By contrast, lions, tigers, leopards, and jaguars can roar but cannot purr, except while exhaling. "... "Purring is made when the cheetah is contented, usually during pleasant social meetings (e.g. a mother with her cubs). Out of all of the Big Cats, cheetahs are the only ones that purr."

Hi Mazzawi, cheetahs are the only big cat that can purr on both the inhale and the exhale. Other big cats can purr - but only on the exhale. Thanks for pointing that out and I've edited the article to refelct that. Please remember to sign your name with: ~~~~ after your comments. Thanks. Ben 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Domestication

"In much of their former range they were domesticated by aristocrats and used to hunt antelopes in much the same way as is still done with members of the greyhound group of dogs." I was under the impression that cheetahs could be tamed but could not be domesticated. The aristocrats didn't breed cheetahs like greyhounds, they captured wild ones and tamed them. --BHC 19:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

i need to know...

why can a cheetah run as fast as it does??i need to know for class..

What is the cheetah's hunting success rate?

Yandman's edit

Hi Yandman, I did not think that your changes were an improvement to the article. You cut out perfectly relevant facts and I don't believe that is "sounded like a kid's wildlife programme." If that is the case then prehaps you could rewrite the facts to a tone you consider more appropriate for an encyclopedia, rather than just deleting them. Thank you. Ben ^(talk) 23:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ben. The problem is that inserting these facts into the article will always be problematic. The fact is that the Cheetah does 0-60 in 3.5 secs. The rest, while being true, is unnecessary interpretation. Why those specific cars? Why that specific airplane? They're not the fastest vehicles in their class, they're not the slowest, e.t.c... While these facts are interesting, they're better off being in the body of the article (if they're included at all), because the intro has to keep to the important stuff. In much the same way that we wouldn't put "it weighs as much as 532 african elephants" in the intro to the 747. yandman 16:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Super Cheetah

Visual depiction of the super cheetah

While many Cheetahs are said to reach speeds of 70 mph(120 km/h), a new variation has been rumored to apear nocturnally across the plains, said to reach double the speed of what was originally thought. Animal Planet has an upcoming documentary entitled: "Super Cheetahs: The Investigation" in which famed naturalist Austin Stevens tracks and records the new species, aptly called "Super Cheetahs". Their wild speed is due to genetic engineering in which gentic scienctists have embedded bionic and mechanical machinery to increase performance, and adrenaline production. The Super Cheetah can reach speeds up to 127 mph (204 km/h). The species diet consists solely on metal. In result of this, many documentary vans and cameras have been demolished, thought to be snacks. The actual existence of said species is speculated.

Probably because you provided no reliable sources. JonHarder 03:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

why was the section on the super cheetah species removed?

please respond, and i need to know why wikipedia denies knowledge

• There is no reason to beleive it actually exists.--Marhawkman 16:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is "Super Cheetah" thing is total bs. The picture of one is from Transformers for crying out loud!

Typical/Atypical

"...atypical member of the cat family (Felidae) that hunts by speed rather than by stealth or pack tactics"... This gives the false (?) impression that "pack tactics" are typical of Felids. Aren't lionesses atypical in their group tactics? --Wetman 09:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wetman, pack tactics are not typical of felids, I think the first part of the statement is seperate from the second part about its hunting. Although in what way it is atypical the author of that sentence didn't think to say. Ben ^(talk) 23:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Height

How tall are these things? Xiner 20:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Their shoulder height is: males: 74-94cm and females: 67-84cm. Hope this helps. Ben ^(talk) 22:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

O'Brian Felidae research

didn't o'brian et al publish lots of genetic data on the family, including linking the cheetahs, pumas, and jaguaroundis as each others' closest relatives? i'm sure i could find it if i had to, but if anyone has it on hand.... Metanoid 01:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

O'Brien's book is entitled, "Tears of the Cheetah: And Other Tales from the Genetic Frontier" Wizzyliz 18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

capitalization

I did a "find and replace" on the article to change the generic use of the word "Cheetah" throughout it to lowercase "cheetah". Maybe I am stepping onto a controversial landmine, I am not sure :) . My first impression of the page was the uppercase style looked unusual and it was pretty distracting (also inconsistent - the lowercase form also was used in places). Before making the change I looked in a lot of different places on wikipedia and elsewhere for guidance on whether the word "cheetah" should be uppercase or lowercase. For instance this article: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). From that article and various "talk" pages of discussions it seems that there are controversies about caps or no-caps for different types of animals, extending even up to the professionals. I didn't see controversy or specifics about cats but mainly birds and fish, so the wikipedia guidances really didn't give me a solid resolution either way about Cheetah vs cheetah.

From there I turned to four real world sources of expertise. I soon came to the conclusion that cheetah should in fact be lowercase:

• http://scholar.google.com - A wonderful corner of google that allows you to search scholarly papers on subjects. In searching for "cheetah", it became abundantly clear that professional biologists do not capitalize cheetah in their work (except when it's part of a title to a paper or article).
• Cheetah Conservation Fund - Given as an external link in the article and from what I can tell a well-known, very respected organization. They do not capitalize cheetah.
• De Wildt Wild Cheetah Project - Another external link in the article and also from what I can tell a well-known and highly regarded organization. They do not capitalize cheetah.
• Webster's Dictionary - cheetah is listed as lower case.

At first I was inclined to leave "King Cheetah" uppercase since it seemed a more specific, proper-noun varient of cheetah, but again in searching scholarly papers with google, I found it was used on a lower case basis by professionals. Beyazid 00:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I've adopted the WP:BIRD rationale for all of the species I edit. I'm in the process of updating all of our mammal articles to reflect Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition. It uses capitals for species, too. I'm reverting your lowercasing. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should WP:BIRD be followed for all species? (And only the third sentence in, it says, "In general, these are only suggestions, and you shouldn't feel obligated to follow them.") I've looked it up on Britannica and cheetah also is lower case there. Do you have additional sources, or can you point to a wikipedia guideline that is for topics of mammals or cat species? I have many multiple corroborating sources from reference authorities and professional journals that show "cheetah" is the actual accepted usage. Thanks. Beyazid 06:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition. There have been a number of discussions on this, none of them conclusive, with various references using various different styles. Since there is some conflict, it is up to we, the Wikipedia editors, to come up with a style. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see there's more of a central conversation on the overall capitalization issue (WikiProject Mammals talk) and I'll post there also.

I've returned the article to have the lowercase form of "cheetah" for the following reasons:

• The consensus guideline on style, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, refers wikipedia editors to authoritative sources such as Chicago Manual of Style to resolve questions like this. CMoS does address this topic in section 8.136: "For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.127... "In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives" (eg "Rocky Mountain sheep"). There isn't a wikipedia guideline to supplant it on this topic.
• Webster's dictionary - lowercase
• Oxford dictionary - lowercase
• Encyclopedia Britannica - lowercase
• Associated Press Stylebook - lowercase
• Walker's Mammals of the World 6th edition -- "the most comprehensive -- the pre-eminent -- reference work on mammals" doesn't capitalize cheetah or other fauna. MSW3 recognizes and cites WMotW in its introduction.

And finally, and most surprisingly!, MSW3 itself doesn't actually support the uppercase style. It uses the lowercase form cheetah in its commentary. See pg 532, "Family Felidae" comments: "Most studies agree on the clear separation of the "big cats" (i.e., Panthera, Neofelis, Uncia) from the remainder. However, within the remaining group, there does not appear to be a clear consensus. Even the cheetah's (Acinonyx) traditional position has been called into question (Bininda-Emonds et al., 1999; Mattern and McLennan, 2000)."

For those who haven't seen MSW3 before, it's an academic compendium of taxonomic information and uses a highly hierarchal and formalized structure for presenting its information. It doesn't discuss its topics or write about them in the way an article or book would. For each species, there are standard sections including "type species", "synonyms", "common name". The "common name" is presented on a single line for each species in the format: "COMMON NAME: Cheetah." I think it's a misunderstanding of the book to take the style it adopted to present its voluminous information as for some reason a style standard for written materials like articles. It's clearly not. MSW3 itself doesn't use the uppercase style when it is discussing topics with regular writing outside of its formalized structure. For another example see the "Wildcat" entry comment on pg 537, where again, like with cheetah, it follows a style consistent with how CMoS would have it, and refers to "European wild cat". All the best. Beyazid 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Man-Eaters?

I saw on TV that cheetahs don't eat humans, I need some-one to confirm this, it might be good for the article.Atomic45 05:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

- I think I read this in the Spotted Sphinx, cheetahs may show agression, hiss and make other threatening sounds, but they will never attack. I also read about cheetah cannibalism though, that's another thing. Feb 24th 2007

Gangbangers?

I've heard groups of up to 3 males will cooperate in bringing down larger prey, even ostriches. Can somebody confirm & include? Trekphiler 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

- Here is a video I found on youtube about two cheetahs killing a gnu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXO3h6bpEUU though only one cheetah really does the work, the other one is still helping. Feb 24th 2007

- Also, in the National Geographic video "Season of the cheetah" there are three brother cheetahs who cooperate to kill a wildebeast. Two of them are attacking and the third one seems to guard them and scares away any wildebeast that are thinking of helping their relative. Though they don't manage to kill the beast because of hyenas. March 10, 2007 — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.201.13 (talk • contribs).

Unlike males and other felines, females do not establish territories?

Why does it have this sentence, it would make more sense and just be easier to use:

As with most other felines, the females do not establish territories.

I tried to change it but it was reverted, with no explanation. C hris_huh^talk 18:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuor replacement has a different meaning than the original. In part, the original says the opposite of what your replacement says. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In Iran, cheetahs collared for the first time

I just heard an interview with Luke Hunter on NPR on KQED-FM 11:50 p.m. See also: Wildlife Conservation Society (March 2007) "In Iran, cheetahs collared for the first time" Physorg.com. James S. 06:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You can add it to the Asiatic Cheetah article. Ben ^(talk) 13:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Review

I believe a number of changes are needed on this article, for one the cheetah is not a typical felidia, infact its unlike any of the other cats,i do not have the time at this point to write a full and detailed reason of how they differ from other cats, but believe me they are NOT typical ie non retract claws is not typical. i will review and attempt to edit as best as possible over the comming months. i have a large amount of big cat articles im viewing and reviewing and these things take time, any help would be a great help. cheers and kind regards CheetahKeeper 08:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just make sure you use citations for the changes you make. Your own personal knowledge is not sufficient. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and "atypical" means "not typical". And "felidia" isn't correct. "Felid" is probably what you mean. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit origin

You were both right and wrong. Citra- means "variegated, speckled, spotted according to Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon. Dictionary.com gives it's own origin and American Heritages as follows:

[Origin: 1695–1705; < Hindi cītā < Skt citraka leopard; cf. Pali cittaka, Prakrit cittaya]
[Hindi cītā, from Sanskrit citrakāyaḥ, tiger, leopard : citra-, variegated + kāyaḥ, body; see kwei-2 in Indo-European roots.]

So I've adjusted the intro to fit these sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers I was aware of the meaning of atypical but im not sure our average user is. Thanks on the clarrification of the name, though spotted one is more oftenly used and is seen in other sth african languages, however i do like your new intro. Thanks For the Adjust, Cheers and Kind Regards CheetahKeeper 13:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation???

Why is the word "cheetah" capitalised throughout this page? It's not a proper noun, so it is incorrect to capitalise it. I haven't edited it myself, because I want to make sure that there isn't a good reason for it. 220.239.230.79 11:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BIRD for the logic of capitalizing the official common names of species. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no rationale for WP:BIRD having any bearing on capitalization for the cheetah article or any other mammal article.

Actual authoritative style guides, professional biology journals, reference guides on mammals, dictionaries, and print encyclopedias all overwhelmingly show cheetah is lowercase, as does WP:STYLE. Beyazid 00:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but I disagree, as do others. I've reverted it. Have a good day. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not just my input but is backed by citations of numerous authorities including MSW3 itself. Your disagreement needs to be based on more than your personal fondness for WP:BIRD. All the best. Beyazid 15:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have chosen to continuously revert whenever I edit the article to use lowercase for common names, but you haven't given any reason except WP:BIRD, which isn't applicable to this article. I guess maybe you really don't have any justification beyond that. I'm trying to have the article meet the consensus style of WP:MOS, and to match the overwhelming mass of scientific and popular literature which show cheetah is lowercase, and you shouldn't be reverting good faith edits and refusing to justify your reverts. Please see WP:REVERT. I will be happy to review any authoritative source you give that actually justifies your position, but until you are able to do so, please stop the reverts, it is disruptive and inappropriate. Beyazid 01:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references

I think there are some very good, noteworthy examples in this section, but there are also a handfull of trivial examples, in which acheetah is simply mentioned, or makes a brief appearance, but is otherwise not of significant importance to the subject which is said to make the reference. I'm going to try to take these out. Calgary 04:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on capitalization

Same poll as on Talk:Cougar, just so there's no question what the consensus is for this particular species. Opinions from anyone passing by would be much appreciated. You can indicate first and second choices if you like. If you're wondering why this is necessary, see here. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Option 1: "cheetah" in small letters except at the beginning of a sentence

(place vote here)

1. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Beyazid 03:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Pentagram16 00:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC) (but this is silly, read the freaking MOS!)
5. Hazy24 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Ben ^(talk) 01:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Option 2:"the Cheetah" capitalised when used to refer to the species as a whole

(place vote here)

Option 3: "Cheetah" always capitalised

1. UtherSRG (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
2. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 01:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
3. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

predatory nature

Are cheetahs known to attack and kill people? If they do, why? Are there any documented cases?

Dave 21:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not that I am aware of. Ben ^(talk) 02:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

on the topic of speed

this article states : The cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) is a vulnerable member of the cat family (Felidae), a poor climber that hunts by speed and stealth. As such, it is placed in its own genus, Acinonyx. It is the fastest of all land animals and can reach speeds between 112 km/h (70 mph) and 120 km/h (75 mph) [3] in short bursts up to 460 m (500 yards), and has the ability to accelerate from 0 to 110 km/h (68 mph) in three seconds, faster than most supercars.[4]

another article for the Springbok states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springbok_%28antelope%29 The Springbok (Afrikaans and Dutch: spring = jump; bok = antelope, deer, or goat) (Antidorcas marsupialis) is a small brown and white gazelle that stands about 75 cm high. The males can weigh up to 50 kg and the females up to 37 kg. They can reach running speeds of up to 83mph.

these two articles are in contradiction: the Springbok articles states that a Springbok can reach running speeds of 83mph, yet the Cheetah articles states that a Cheetah is the fastest land animal and can reach 70 - 75 mph which is slower than the Springbok

Lubi 41.242.163.192 07:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The cheetah is the fastest by far. In actually the reason it says between 70 and 75 mph is because we really don't know the MAX speed of the cheetah because of lack of research and indiviuals are different. Unfortunately, people where paying more attention to how it's body moves then clocking its speed everytime it went on a chase. There is even one recording of a cheetah clocking 80mph without any wind assistance which isn't impossible, but it's crazy fast. The springbok is not the fastest gazzle the thompson's gazzle is they clock at about 55 to 60 mph depending on the individual and situation it is in. Matter of fact if the cheetah were to go extinct only thing that would come close to catching one would be the african leopard which clocks at 50 mph, but the gazzles would eventually overpopulate. It would be a huge disaster from any view point. Mcelite (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Paw

I think it should be added in the description part that cheetahs have bigger hind paws than fore paws(Unlike most animals) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoundBlast (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Five subspecies or six?

The article makes two separate claims. Someone who is more knowledgeable than me about cheetahs needs to correct one of them. Funnyhat (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Better now? - UtherSRG (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)