Talk:Florida panther

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

No "wild boar [sic]" in the Western Hemisphere[edit]

Please consider replacing "wild boar" with "feral pig" in this sentence: "The Florida panther is a large carnivore whose diet consists of small animals like hares, mice, and waterfowl but also larger animals like storks, white-tailed deer, wild boar [sic], and even the American Alligator." All such boars, pigs, hogs, razorbacks, etc. are either domestic stock or escaped/released domestic stock and are exotic species, not, therefore, truly wild, and describing them as such makes the campaign to eradicate them much more difficult by legitimizing them. Autodidact1 (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization: Florida panther or Florida Panther?[edit]

Also, it's Florida panther, not Florida Panther. Pigkeeper 06:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The capitalization of species' names has been the subject of controversy. As of now, it can go either way. --Khoikhoi 07:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars are silly, but really, Florida panther is the accepted usage, not Florida Panther. Examples:

So it doesn't go "either way". There is accepted usage here. People who want to change it back to Panther should engage in this conversation and not just revert. Revert is for vandalism. Buck up and discuss. And give citations! Pigkeeper 08:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, please see for example this style manual for scientific terminology from the University of Minnesota [1]. It says:

In general, do not capitalize the names of wild and domestic plants and animals. Capitalize only proper nouns and adjectives used with their original reference.

  • English ivy
  • Rocky Mountain sheep
  • dutchman’s breeches

Looking at Wikipedia's conventions, we see that some animal species are capitalized and others aren't, and it says mammals are a mixed bag, "mostly capitalized". If we look closer though, we see that yes, your area (monkeys) is that way, but in other areas this isn't the rule. Some places it's sloppy, like the polar bear article. Other places it's clearly a toss-up, like with the bat species pages. Many bat species are lower case, many are upper case. So it's a gray area. However, the wiki naming conventions also say:

In general, Wikipedia follows academic practice in each group of organisms.

I think this is the closest there is in terms of wikipedia policy here. And I have demonstrated that there is near unanimous academic and management practice for saying Florida panther, nor Florida Panther.

If people aren't willing to drop this, please at least engage in the discussion and don't do reverts without justification. It feels insulting.

I HAVE read the commentary at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals, too. Please see Beyazid's reasoning for returning cheetah to lower-case. Those substantive reasons apply to the Florida panther case, too.

Pigkeeper 08:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't take IPs too seriously, especially when they don't post on talk, but insist they are correct in edit summaries. Second, you've likely seen me comment on capitalization, and how I think caps are better than sentence case. I stand by my reasoning. Third, the article title and its text should match. Since you've moved the article, I will leave it alone for now, until the matter is settled at a level higher than this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for writing back. I accept the criticism about IPs, although you changed it earlier when a named user made it lower case. Also, while I prefer to follow the usage of scholarly and management sources, I accept that there is a case to be made for capitalization. However, if this decision is made, the naming conventions page should explain that wikipedia is going against the grain in some cases (or is a part of the vanguard, as you might put it). Right now it says academic practice is generally followed, but that wouldn't be the case here. Pigkeeper 22:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

its Florida Panther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

status as a subspecies?[edit]

The Florida Panther is not a legitimate subspecies (see the changes I've made at the Puma page). This ought to be made a section of the Puma concolor cougar page whose title will be changed to North American Cougar.Eco jake 13:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Eco Jake

The dialogue between subspecies lumpers and splitters is ongoing for many animals, including puma, but there is certainly no consensus to "revise subspecies status for the Florida panther. Given the relevance to protection under the Endangered Species Act, such a revision should not be proposed lightly. Although a recent study describes the subspecies of Puma concolor as fairly similar on a molecular level, the panther is one of the more distinctive of the subspecies, and factors other than molecular similarity are considered when deciding whether to revise subspecies status. Recent scientific articles about the Florida panther retain the subspecies designation (see Beier et al. 2006 and Conroy et al. 2006), as does the the Draft USFWS Florida Panther Recovery Plan, recently released for public comment.

Beier, P, MR Vaughan, MJ Conroy, and H Quigley. 2006. Evaluating scientific inferences about the Florida Panther. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:236-245. online URL:

Conroy, MJ, P Beier, H Quigley, and MR Vaughan. 2006. Improving the use of science in conservation: lessons from the Florida panther. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1-7. online URL:

Ecover 00:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Eastern cougars are critically endangered as well as the Florida panther. Sub-speicies are an important point in speciesation; destructions would possibly be an pre-empted extinction. Perhaps the east could learn from the west … but that is much beyond the scope of any Encyclopædia article. Nonprof. Frinkus 03:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

With regard to the recent back and forth about whether coryi is still a valid subspecies: Rather than engage in an edit war, we may need administrative intervention to mediate whether posters should change the subspecies designation of an endangered species.

There is no one definitive standard for subspecies designations - the standard is what's accepted by the biologists who work closely with a species. Culver's work is the only basis for the MSW3 designation, and she considered only molecular markers. Molecular findings by Culver, even if they're accepted by MCW3, are insufficient for Wikipedia posters to reclassify an endangered animal. Many factors are considered in addition to similarities at the molecular level described by Culver. Length of time a subspecies has been geographically distinct, phenotypic characteristics, behavioral adaptations and other factors are considered as well. Molecular biologists are not trained or qualified to consider these factors, which should be evaluated and reported on by qualified panther experts in peer-reviewed journals before posters restructure listings.

In the case of the Florida panther, because of its endangered status, Wikipedians should defer to decisions made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the IUCN, and the biologists who work closely with the panther, all of whom still recognize coryi as a valid subspecies.

Such persistent and unseemly haste to override panther recovery biologists could be seen as trying to create a public consensus to pressure agencies to reclassify the panther, based on political rather than scientific reasons - part of the public relations war waged by those whose financial interests conflict with panther recovery. Ecover 02:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice... tell us not to engage in an edit war, but you go ahead and revert anyway. I've reverted you again. Biologists determine how many subspecies there are, not conservationists. USFWS is a conservation program of the governemnt. MSW3 is written by scientists. I'll go with the scientists saying it isn't a subspecies. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The modification of the Florida Panther article to remove coryi was not discussed on the talk page to reach consensus, as would be appropriate for a change of such import. I reverted to retain the original terminology, still used in all peer-reviewed publications on the endangered Florida panther, until administrative input can help resolve the issue. MSW3 is not a scientific study, it's a list. Reclassification has been suggested by only 1 study (Culver et al. 2000), which considered only specific molecular characteristics. USFWS is not a "conservation program," it's a government agency - charged, among other tasks, with applying best available science to endangered species recovery. Of the group of scientists conducting and publishing panther research, none have dropped the coryi subspecies designation. You misunderstand how taxonomy works. MSW3 has not made a definitive ruling on panther taxonomy. Several different scientific names may be in circulation at the same time for a given animal, as taxonomic points of view differ, and may continue to differ for some time. A working consensus emerges from ongoing publications and discussions within the research community, it's not imposed on them by an outside authority such as MSW3. The Wikipedia page should reflect the current working consensus of panther researchers, acknowledging that multiple names may be in circulation, rather than being modified to reflect the opinion of individual posters. Ecover 04:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If I had to guess, the USFWS will never remove subspecies status for political reasons—which wouldn't be an entirely bad thing, as the population is worthy of attention. If you have species-specific, post-2000 publications listing it as coryi, note them and we can add the info. Marskell 13:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. I checked Google Scholar and found many examples of 2001-2007 references to Puma concolor coryi, but none that dropped coryi for the Florida panther. Below is a sampling, pardon the hurried formatting. Does anyone object to reverting to coryi on the Wikipedia Florida Panther page to reflect consensus usage? Ecover 02:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Improving The Use Of Science In Conservation: Lessons From The Florida Panther - MJ CONROY, P BEIER, H QUIGLEY, MR VAUGHAN - Journal of Wildlife Management 2006 - ...we identified 2 sets of unreliable inferences that may compromise efforts to conserve the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi)...

Evaluating Scientific Inferences about the Florida Panther - P BEIER, MR VAUGHAN, MJ CONROY, H QUIGLEY - Journal of Wildlife Management 2006 - ...we provided an independent assessment of the reliability of the scientific literature used to support conservation of Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi)...

An Analysis of Scientific Literature Related to the Florida Panther - Beier, P., M.R. Vaughan, M.J. Conroy, and H. Quigley. 2003. ... requirements of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi)...

The genetic rescue of the Florida panther - SL Pimm, L Dollar, OL Bass Jr - Anim. Conserv, 2006 - ... a small, isolated, inbred and distinct subspecies (Puma concolor coryi)...

How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther - R KAUTZ, R KAWULA, T HOCTOR, J COMISKEY, D JANSEN, … - Biological conservation, 2006 - ... The Florida panther(Puma concolor coryi) is an endangered, wide-ranging predator whose habitat needs conflict with a rapidly growing human population. ...

Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation and loss: the case of the Florida black bear (Ursus … - JD Dixon, MK Oli, MC Wooten, TH Eason, JW McCown, … - Conservation Genetics, 2007 - ... The plight of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) are examples of large carnivores that have been reduced to ...

Recent developments in conservation genetics - PW Hedrick - Forest Ecology and Management, 2004 - The last remaining population of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) provides an extreme example of this phenomenon in an endangered spe- cies. ...

Genetic restoration: a more comprehensive perspective than genetic rescue - P Hedrick - Update, 2005 - ... In developing a comprehensive scheme for recovery of the Florida panther Puma concolor coryi [2] * , the genetic and evolutionary consequences of gene flow ...

MEASUREMENT PROBLEMS AND FLORIDA PANTHER MODELS - K Shrader-Frechette - Southeastern Naturalist, 2004- ... This paper evaluates the science underlying the least-cost-path model, developed by Meegan and Maehr (2002), for the Florida panther, Puma concolor coryi. ...

Modeling Florida panther movements in response to human attributes of the landscape and ecological … - PC Cramer, KM Portier - Ecological Modelling, 2001 - ... of an individual-based spatially explicit model created to assist in the potential reintroduction of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) to northern ...

NORTH AMERICAN FELID TAXON ADVISORY GROUP (TAG) 2004 ANNUAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN -  » N Fletchall - ... Rehabilitation of Wild Florida Panthers (Puma concolor coryi) at the White Oak Conservation Center (by Karen Zeigler) The Florida panther once ranged ...

Of cats and Haruspices: genetic intervention in the Florida panther. Response to Pimm et al.(2006) -  » DS Maehr, P Crowley, JJ Cox, MJ Lacki, JL Larkin, … - ANIMAL CONSERVATION, 2006 - Blackwell Synergy ... Abstract. The claim that the Florida panther Puma concolor coryi has been genetically rescued ...

Florida Panther Habitat Use: New Approach to an Old Problem - JJ COX, DS MAEHR, JL LARKIN - Journal of Wildlife Management, 2006 - the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) remains one ...

Panthers and Forests in South Florida: an Ecological Perspective - EJ Comiskey, OL Bass Jr, LJ Gross, RT McBride, R … - Conservation Ecology, 2002 - Conservation Ecology, 2002 ... The endangered Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) survives in an area of pronounced habitat diversity in southern Florida, occupying extensive home ranges ...

EVALUATING IMPACTS TO FLORIDA PANTHER HABITAT: HOW POROUS IS THE UMBRELLA? - EJ Comiskey, AC Eller Jr, DW Perkins - Southeastern Naturalist, 2004 - ... The endangered Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) shares its shrinking habitat with ...

Reproductive life history of ocelots Leopardus pardalis in southern Texas -  » LL LAACK, ME TEWES, AM HAINES, JH RAPPOLE - Acta Theriologica, 2005 - ... All ocelot dens were devoid of prey remains and scat, much like dens sites of the Florida panther Puma concolor coryi...

Responses of Florida panthers to recreational deer and hog hunting -  » MW JANIS, JD CLARK - The Journal of wildlife management, 2002 - ... Big Cypress National Preserve constitutes approximately one-third of the range of the endangered Florida panther(Puma concolor coryi). ...

Retrospective study of proliferative papillary vulvitis in Florida panthers - DS Rotstein, SK Taylor, A Birkenhauer, M Roelke- … - Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 2002 - Wildlife Dis Assoc ... reproduction. Key words: Florida panther, cougar, Puma concolor coryi, proliferative vulvitis, vestibulum vaginae, pathology, reproduction. ...

Shopping Centers as Panther Habitat: Inferring Animal Locations from Models - DS Maehr, JL Larkin, JJ Cox - Ecology and Society, 2004 - ... A recent model of Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) habitat erred in arbitrarily creating buffers around radio locations collected during daylight hours on ...

[BOOK] Species Conservation and Management: Case Studies HR Akçakaya - 2004 - Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi): Using Models to Guide Recovery Efforts, Karen V. Root. Using RAMAS GIS, ...

Feline Immunodeficiency Virus and Puma Lentivirus in Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi): Epidemiology and Diagnostic … - DL Miller, SK Taylor, DS Rotstein, MB Pough, MC … - Veterinary Research Communications, 2006 - ...

Why Not the Best? How Science Failed the Florida Panther - L Gross - PLoS Biol, 2005 - ... Tracking a Secretive Species. In many ways, the story of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) echoes that of every other large carnivore. ...

Addressing the Ecological Effects of Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs) K Points - ECOLOGY, 2006 -... In areas of heavy ORV use within the Big Cypress National Preserve, the Florida panther ( Puma concolor coryi ) avoids preferred hunting areas and home ranges ...

Wide-Ranging Carnivores and development permits: constructing a multi-scale model to evaluate impacts on the Florida panther - DS Maehr, JP Deason - Clean Products and Processes, 2002 - ... and human disturbance to generate an empirical approach to estimating functional equivalent units of ideal Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) habitat. ...

Avoiding the Lurking Pitfalls in Florida Panther Recovery DS Maehr, RC Lacy - Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2002 - ... C. Lacy Abstract Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) recovery currently hinges on the introgression of genetic material from introduced Texas cougars (P c. ...

BIG CYPRESS REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM CONCEPTUAL ECOLOGICAL MODEL - CY Browser, V Figures - Wetlands, 2005 - ... The endangered Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi Bangs) is the only representative of this species surviving in the eastern United States (Logan et al. ...

[BOOK] Endangered and Threatened Animals of Florida and Their Habitats -  » C Scott - 2004 - Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi) ...

Causes of mortality of free-ranging Florida panthers - SK Taylor, CD Buergelt, ME Roelke-Parker, BL Homer - Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 2002 - Wildlife Dis Assoc ... ABSTRACT : The Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) is one of the most endangered mammals, with the entire population estimated to consist of only 30–50 ...

Identifying Suitable Sites for Florida Panther Reintroduction. CINDY A. THATCHER, FRANK T. VAN MANEN, , JOSEPH D. CLARK. Journal of Wildlife Management. 2006.

Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) research and monitoring in Big Cypress National Preserve DK Jansen, IF Lundgren, AT Johnson, SR Schulze - Annual Report, 2004

Clouded leopards, the secretive top-carnivore of South-East Asian rainforests: their distribution, - A Wilting, F Fischer, A Bakar, KE Linsenmair - BMC Ecology, 2006 - ... were included in the analysis since smaller populations of large cats, such as the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), experienced reduced viability ...

Conservation Genetics of the Far Eastern Leopard (Panthera pardus orientalis) - O Uphyrkina, D Miquelle, H Quigley, C Driscoll, SJ … - Journal of Heredity, 2002 - ...comparable to the genetically depauperate Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) populations...

Cryptorchidism in Florida panthers: prevalence, features, and influence of genetic restoration - KG Mansfield, ED Land - Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 2002 - Wildlife Dis Assoc ... The Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) is a subspecies of puma that formerly intergraded with the eastern cougar (P. concolor couguar) to the north...

Do prescribed fires in South Florida reduce habitat quality for native carnivores? -  » DS Maehr, JL Larkin - Natural Areas Journal, 2004 - ... and one-size-fits-all prescriptions may ultimately reduce the ability for key preserves to support the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi Bangs) and black ...

Eastern Cougar Recovery Is Linked to the Florida Panther: Cardoza and Langlois Revisited DS Maehr, MJ Kelly, C Bolgiano, T Lester, H … - Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2003 - ... Browse lines, highway colli- cougar, Florida panther, Puma concolor, recovery sions, Lyme ... the predator-prey relation between panther (P c. coryi) and deer ...

Effects of Roads and Human Disturbance on Amur Tigers - LL Kerley, JM Goodrich, DG Miquelle, EN Smirnov, … - Conservation Biology, 2002 - ... large-carnivore species and among sex and age classes within species ( Table 4). For example, female Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi ) avoid crossing ...

FLORIDA PANTHER ANNUAL REPORT 2004-05 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission -  » FF Conservation - ... al. (2005). Telemetry data were collected on 40 radiocollared Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi) in ...

Florida panther dispersal and conservation -  » DS Maehr, ED Land, DB Shindle, OL Bass, TS Hoctor - Biological Conservation, 2002 - ... The endangered Florida panther Puma concolor coryi has been described as a highly inbred population with limited dispersal potential due to landscape ...

Florida panther habitat use in response to prescribed fire - » CS DEES, JD CLARK, FT VAN MANEN - The Journal of wildlife management, 2001 - ... The Florida panther(Puma concolor coryi) is one of the most endangered mammals in the world, with only 30-50 adults surviving in and around Florida Panther ...

Gastrointestinal Helminths of Free-ranging Florida Panthers (Puma concolor coryi) and the Efficacy - GW Foster, MW Cunningham, JM Kinsella, G … - Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 2006 -

Integrating ecology with human demography, behavior, and socioeconomics: needs and approaches - J Liu - Ecological Modelling, 2001 - ... individual-based, spatially explicit model to evaluate the feasibility of reintroducing the endangered Florida panther ( Puma concolor coryi) into northern ...

Landscape linkages and conservation planning for the black bear in west-central Florida - JL Larkin, DS Maehr, TS Hoctor, MA Orlando, K … - Animal Conservation, 2004 - ... A similar approach was used in regional planning for the endangered Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi: Meegan & Maehr, 2002), and it may be a valuable tool ...

That's all fine and good, but are any of these about taxonomy or its relationship to/among the Cougar subspecies? If not, then they have no need to investigate Culver's work, or to acknowledge it. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to admire your persistence, but you just don't have a case here. One study is not a sufficient basis to change the subspecies designation of an endangered species. Culver's study is well-known to panther biologists. It was covered in some detail by the Florida Panther Scientific Review Team (Beier et al. 2003), noting that microsatellite DNA samples came from only 6 individuals and the 'type' specimen was not sampled. I'm sure the 'lumpers' and 'splitters' will sort things out over the next decade or so. In the meantime, posters should not rush to change the panther's subspecies designation on Wikipedia pages, pre-empting consensus among panther biologists. Ecover 03:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, Ecover. Well said. The prevailing biological usage is clearly that the Florida Panther does have unique subspecies status, and the opinion of one scientist should not take the place of all the peer-reviewed literature on the subject. That isn't how taxonomy works. Isn't this the second time that folks have tried to force this on the community? I believe that it didn't work then for the same reasons it shouldn't work now. If someone believes that such a controversial (and ill-advised) change should be made, then they should try and seek consensus on the discussion page rather than edit warring with people with sound science behind them. Riverbend 13:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The argument isn't that Culver said it, but that the MSW3 followed it. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. What the canonical secondary literature says is what we follow. Of course, the more references the better, and we can introduce into the intro "its current status is equivocal" or some such thing. Though if we want to directly answer Culver, we do need a paper specific to taxonomy and subspecies relationships. Marskell 16:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The issue is whether subspecies status should be changed on Wikipedia when no authors publishing on the subject of panthers have adopted Culver's suggested revision. It's not as if every suggested taxonomic revision is by default accepted until another investigator counters it by looking at molecular markers. You seem to be saying that we should follow MSW3 and note that others disagree, as if a general listing such as MSW3 were binding in every case. My view is that we should retain coryi and note that MSW3 usage differs. I've seen language elsewhere in biological surveys to the effect that: "we follow MSW3 (or some other authority) except as noted." That type of caveat would be appropriately applied in this case, especially since Culver's study was based on a very small sample and her findings are not at all unequivocal. The 2006 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Revision addressed Culver's work, noting that even Culver acknowledged that the panther has unique features: "Culver et al. (2000) examined genetic diversity within and among the described subspecies of Puma concolor using three groups of genetic markers and proposed a revision of the genus to include only six subspecies, one of which encompassed all Puma in North America including the Florida panther. However, Culver et al. (2000) determined that the Florida panther was one of several smaller populations that had unique features, the number of polymorphic microsatellite loci and amount of variation were lower, and it was highly inbred (eight fixed loci). The degree to which the scientific community has accepted the results of Culver et al. (2000) and the proposed change in taxonomy is not resolved at this time. The Florida panther remains listed as a subspecies and continues to receive protection pursuant to the ESA." Ecover 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please can you link the 2006 Plan and it can be added to Cougar (sooner rather than later, because it's on the main page). "You seem to be saying that we should follow MSW3 and note that others disagree." Yes, that's what I'm saying. Wikipedia being what it is, I don't see us in a position to do otherwise. Marskell 18:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Draft Florida Panther Recovery Plan is available at:

I strongly disagree about Wikipedia's role and constraints. To unilaterally adopt the equivocal findings of Culver, albeit incorporated in MSW3, when no scientists working in the the field of panther biology have done so, would confuse and mislead readers about the panther's taxonomic status, but also about what taxonomic status is and how it is derived. In fact, taxonomic status is emergent from the usage practices of the many authors who publish about a given plant or animal rather than being imposed by a canonical authority. The current language in the Wikipedia panther article, stating that the panther is no longer an endangered subspecies, is wrong. The key point is that the article was changed without discussion from a usage that is uniformly accepted in scientific literature related to the panther to one that no panther researchers have adopted. Posters have not established that a general listing such as MSW3 carries the kind of authority that would justify, much less mandate, such a change.Ecover 20:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Cougar page now has the following:
The status of the Florida Panther, here collapsed into the North American Cougar, remains uncertain. It is still regularly listed as subspecies Puma concolor coryi in research works, including those directly concerned with its conservation. Culver et al. themselves noted microsatellite variation in the Florida Panther, possibly due to inbreeding; responding to the research, one conservation team suggests "the degree to which the scientific community has accepted the results of Culver et al. and the proposed change in taxonomy is not resolved at this time."
For tonight, at least, that's all this editor is offering; it's good it was added to Cougar while it's on the mainpage, even if late in the day. The larger debate can be gone over later and this page edited accordingly (a far less important page than Cougar itself, methinks). Marskell 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware that Cougar was on the mainpage. With regard to MSW3, what I suggest is a notation on the MSW3 page that Wikipedia follows MSW3 taxonomy except where noted otherwise. This is the way other compendiums handle such issues. On the panther page, leave the panther as Puma concolor coryi but note that MSW3 usage differs. With regard to both legal status and usage within the scientific community that publishes panther research, the panther retains unique subspecies status.Ecover 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment: In the U.S., Endangered Species status can be given to a population which is not a species or subspecies. An example is the Southern Resident Orca stock, which is most definitely endangered but which nobody considers a subspecies. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 07:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Protection for endangered populations under the Endangered Species Act remains intact, having survived a recent vigorous legislative attempt in the US Congress to remove such protection. The text inserted on the Wikipedia panther page stating that the panther is now an endangered population rather than an endangered subspecies is not accurate, and would not be accurate unless USFWS revoked protection as a subspecies and went through a separate listing process to list the panther as an endangered population under the ESA. (thanks for the welcome and useful info about Wikipedia).Ecover 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


The recent changes are in the right direction, but they don't go far enough. Listing as Puma concolor cougar, with the caveat that "Its current taxonomic status is unresolved" is inaccurate. The panther is Puma concolor coryi until its taxonomic status is resolved. A suggested taxonomic revision, especially one based on analysis of so few individuals and with such equivocal results, does not become the default position until it has been adopted by consensus of working panther biologists, emerging from their publications. Not one of the many post-Culver panther publications has adopted this revision. Again, taxonomy is emergent, not imposed by an outside authority. Ecover 01:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Not resolved at this time" are the words used by the source supporting your point, thus "unresolved" in our first para seems appropriate. It would be a different thing if you had sources arguing "Culver [and, vicariously, the MSW3] have been analyzed and rejected." Note that what you're advocating suffers from what you're criticizing. You're asking Wikipedia to decide, which Wikipedia doesn't do. Again, we should rely on our canonical secondary source(s) for our definitions, as we are a tertiary source, and state a lack of resolution where more primary sources suggest it. Marskell 20:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
At question is what the default designation is. If every suggested revision automotically became the default designation, as you suggest, taxonomy would not be a stable system. Unresolved means only that Culver has suggested a revision. Resolution will come when and if working panther biologists adopt her suggested usage. In the meantime, (as in my supporting source) coryi stands, and should be used in the Taxonomy sidebar. No one has produced a single usage of Culver's suggested designation by panther biologists or a single citation that establishes MSW3 as more than a useful general reference. The burden of proof lies with those who would change the designation of an endangered animal, and I haven't seen any. The anti-ESA rhetoric that accompanied the change was not persuasive that posters had science at heart.Ecover 23:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
To bring closure to this discussion, I obtained a copy of Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition, to check both the factual basis of posters' claims and to determine how MSW3 editors suggest that their checklist be used. MSW3 has not dropped the coryi subspecies designation for the Florida panther. This discussion has been a valuable lesson for me about what Wikipedia is and what it strives to be. Especially where politically sensitive issues are involved, readers and posters must check original sources before accepting information as valid.Ecover 17:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
First, your intimations about politics etc. are baseless. No one here has any hidden agenda, despite your suspicions. In the broad sense, I could care less if the Florida panther is designated in Aves. UtherSRG has been updating all of our animal articles on the basis of MSW3. He has 60 thousand odd edits to speak of, and I trust him. We specifically discussed this in the context of the main Cougar page. I will ask him to update. Marskell 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No offense meant. The MSW3 synonyms are allocated according to Culver, which was probably the source of confusion, but the Status section retains P.c. coryi.Ecover 23:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
MSW3 has indeed droped the subspecies status for 'coryi, relegating it to a synonym as per Culver. MSW3 reports the current status for coryi not because it is a subspecies, but because it is a part of the latest status information. Status has not been reevaluated with regards to the current subspecies list. I won't type in the whole of the P. concolor section, as it takes up about half a page of dense text. Suffice it to say that, Ecover, you don't know how to read MSW3. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If Ecover agrees that "The MSW3 synonyms are allocated according to Culver" then I don't know why this argument was brought up as it was. Reverted. Marskell 06:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Status information is relevant. I am waiting for a citation from you that establishes MSW3 synonym decisions as definitive, and for citations that recognize Puma concolor cougar as the appropriate taxonomic designation for the Florida panther. Synonym checklists, even according to MSW3 editors, derive credibility from the degree to which they reflect accepted usage in recent literature. This is clearly not the case for Culver's suggested revision of the panther designation, given that no recent literature has adopted that suggestion. Who made the decision to use MCW3 rather than the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) or the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS), both of which recognize coryi? Please consult someone, either within or outside the Wikipedia umbrella, who has expertise in such matters before making the unilateral decision to take Wikipedia down this path. You have only to consider the "capitalization rule" discussed above to see the absurdity of applying a poorly-thought-out blanket rule to every case. BTW, I was not inferring hidden political agendas, but referring to explicit statements on discussion pages.Ecover 17:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
ITIS is, like us, a tertiary source. They derive from other secondary sources like MSW (and occasionally primary sources). (They are also often behind the times. For instance, their latest info on the Cougar is from 2003, although they also list 2001 and 1990's publications, including the previous edition of MSW.) ITIS lists two people as the experts for the Cougar: Gardner and Wozencraft. Wozencraft wrote the Carnivora section in MSW3. The ICZN is, generally, not looked to for this kind of answer. They set up the rules for naming. When two (groups of) scientists have a disagreement, they take it to the ICZN to make a decision. No such ruling has been made in this regard for P. cougar. The secondary sources (such as MSW3) gather up the work laid down in the primary sources (such as the work published by Culver) and the authors of the various sections are tasked with deciding what the best current picture is. This is what Wozencraft did in the Carnivora section of MSW3, deciding Culver is the best picture to present as the current understanding of Cougar taxonomy. This is why we use secondary sources like MSW3 as the most significant factor in determining what taxonomic information to use. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
MCW is one of multiple sources considered by ITIS and ICZN - they don't just wait for MCW to make a decision and then update their taxonomic listings accordingly. A single editor at MSW3 gathered up a single source and decided to change the designation of an endangered animal, despite the fact that the single source looked at only 3 markers in 6 individuals, did not include the type specimen, reported equivocal results and has been adopted by no one else in 7 years of subsequent literature? This is why other compendiums that adopt MSW3 as their standard use a qualifier such as, "We follow Mammal Species of the World except when noted otherwise." This is the approach Wikipedia should take in the case of the Florida panther.Ecover 20:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if he consulted 1, 10, or 100 different sources. Here's the text of the comments section:

Reviewed by Currier (1983) as Felis concolor. Placed in Puma by Pocock (1917a), Weigel (1961), Hemmer (1978), and Kratochvil (1982c). Synonyms allocated according to Culver et al. (2000).

This is how it is for the vast majority or species in MSW3. When there is no perceived controversy, the simple facts are laid out and the author moves on to the next species. Give it a rest, Ecover. You aren't convincing me or Marskell. I'm done wasting my time with this argument. You haven't shown that Culver has been overturned, and you haven't shown that non-conservationists ignoring Culver. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Try again on that last sentence - it doesn't make sense. The issue is whether Culver's suggested revision has overturned the default coryi designation, not whether anyone has overturned Culver. The point of this discussion is not to convince UtherSRG or Marskell, but to document the facts for readers who come to the page and wonder what has happened, pending attention from a higher rung in the Wikipedia hierarchy.Ecover 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The facts are documented, Ecover. In fact, I edited specifically to give wide latitude on the definition. People can follow the links. Note that the page does not say it's not a subspecies. It says it's unresolved, just like your own source. What's the problem here? Marskell 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Note that the source I cited said "The degree to which the scientific community has accepted ... the proposed change in taxonomy is not resolved at this time." That's not the same at all as saying that the panther's taxonomy is unresolved.Ecover 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Whoa. Not sure exactly where to put my 2 cents in. . . Marskell's logic is concerning to me. How could there be no perceived controversy associated with challenging the uniqueness of an endangered subspecies? I don't see why Culver would have to be overturned in order to retain coryi? - I think that it was Ecover that said that every suggested revision does not automatically become the default designation. Are you saying only conservationists ignore Culver? Are you saying all the references in the long list above (ecover) listed were conservationists? That isn't how it looks to me. How do you define "conservationist"? Has anybody found even one example of anyone in recent literature adopting Culver's revision for the panther? I only have a limited amount of time, but I did look in both Google and Google Scholar, and found only the Wikipedia entries. Riverbend 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think most of your points respond to UtherSRG above. I agree he sets up a truly puzzling dichotomy (here and in other comments) between "conservationists" and "scientists". NGOs, gray literature, peer-reviewed literature, popular treatments, agency scientists, and academic scientists unanimously still use coryi, with the exception of the MSW3 checklist by Wozencraft, who has no specific regional expertise with the panther.Ecover 21:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(responding to Marskell21:07,21June2007): As explained above, the source I cited noted the challenge by Culver, but continued to use the default coryi as the subspecies designation pending resolution, as Wikipedia should do. I was responding to a statement that authors who continue to use coryi may not be aware of Culver - I produced two references that explicitly discussed the equivocal nature of Culver's findings and continued to use coryi. The argument is not whether the panther is a subspecies of Puma concolor (couguar is a subspecies), but whether it's a unique subspecies, as coryi is. This question raised by Culver will be resolved by further study and consensus at some point, but it hasn't been resolved yet. In the meantime IMHO the taxonomy box on Wikipedia should list the panther as Puma concolor coryi. Ecover 23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC) amended with minor correction Ecover 02:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just caught up on this discussion. It seems that Wikipedia is favoring consistency (i.e. making all animal taxonomies conform to Mammal Species of World listings) over accuracy in this case. MSW, like most reference sources, is neither definitive nor perfect. As discussed above, MSW, while being a useful guide, does not dictate taxonomy. MSW editors admit this and purport to derive their listings from scientific consensus. Let's go back a few steps: in an earlier discussion entry, Marskell asked Ecover whether he/she could produce any "species-specific, post-2000 publications listing it as coryi." It cannot be ignored that EVERY post-2000 scientific study lists the panther as coryi. No one has produced a single example that lists the panther as P.c. couguar, and I've searched myself without finding one. MSW clearly does not reflect scientific consensus in this case. One study should not and does not change an organism's taxonomic designation. Scientists still use the coryi designation exclusively, and the panther is still listed under the ESA as a unique subspecies. If a reader looks in endangered species lists for Wikipedia's Puma concolor couguar, it won't be found. These facts are not clear in the article as it now stands. It is simply, unequivocally wrong to call the Florida panther an "endangered population" of P.c. cougar. There is thus compelling evidence for overriding MSW's synonym listing in this case. Opportunities such as this represent one of Wikipedia's strengths. It seems like people resisting the change are saying that because not every Wikipedia article can be accurate in cases where MSW falls short, then none of them should - i.e. that consistency is preferrable to accuracy. There's something perverse about such intransigence. If the buck without exception stops at "we must conform to MWS," Wikipedia has lost something valuable. Pistolwink84 00:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It's not what I expected from Wikipedia. Rogue elements, maybe, but not officially sanctioned changes of this level of importance that were initially made without discussion and that now seem impervious to discussion.Ecover 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Re "consistency over accuracy," it's actually "verifiability, not truth." See WP:V. Marskell 07:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and see WP:SOCK. Marskell 07:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting. I'm only recently a registered Wikipedia user, yes, but I've kept up with the debates on this page since Cougar was the featured article of the day a while back. Having registered earlier, I thought that weighing in here would be a way to start working toward my active membership in the Wikipedia community - something I've wanted to do for quite awhile, as a heavy (but unregistered) user of the site. Parts of this article are still unequivocally wrong, and posting two links does not constitute a substantive response to the points raised. Pistolwink84 12:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Note to Marskell - see WP:SOCK ". . . However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sock puppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sock puppet without justification, he or she will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia.". Welcome, pistolwink! Riverbend 18:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Welcome, indeed. I'd guess you're a sock of Ecover, but if you're not it will become clear soon enough. Marskell 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The page states nothing unequivocally about its taxonomic status, so I fail to see how it's "unequivocally wrong." What this argument increasingly amounts to is that we should simply pretend the Culver paper and the MSW3 revision don't exist—again, that inverts what's being criticized and can be criticized in turn. If someone wants to mock up a dual taxobox, go for it. I'm tired of the circularity on this talk page. Marskell 17:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a step back here. I initially regarded the changes to the panther page as vandalism, given the lack of discussion, the rhetoric associated with the suggested merge with the cougar page, and the misstatements and misdirections in the modified article. The changes are apparently not malicious and have some degree of official Wikipedia sanction, but Marskell and UtherSRG do seem to be confused about the subspecies issues. I think the root of the problem is that the subspecies designation P.c. couguar suggested by Culver for most North American cougars is already used in the literature and by IUCN, USFWS, ITIS, ICZN et al. to identify the Eastern cougar, a subspecies that ranged widely throughout the eastern US, thought to be extinct or nearly extinct since about 1900. The Eastern cougar has its own separate listings in all the endangered and threatened registries. Culver's suggested revision would lump P.c. coryi, the historical P.c. couguar, and many other North American subspecies into a reconstituted P.c. couguar subspecies. When you changed the subspecies name in the taxbox, you moved the IUCN link away the IUCN Florida panther entry: and pointed it to the IUCN Eastern cougar entry: This is probably where you got the taxbox authority (Kerr, 1792), which is the taxonomic authority for the Eastern cougar subspecies. I took this for intentional misdirection, trying to give the inaccurate impression that the IUCN no longer recognizes the panther as a unique subspecies. However, after reading back through the comments, I think you probably did not realize that these animals have separate listings and genuinely thought that the IUCN (and USFWS, ITIS, ICZN) now list the panther as P.c. couguar, because you can go to their listings and actually find an entry for P.c. couguar. However, it's the listing for the Eastern cougar, not the Florida panther. The panther is still listed by all these groups as P.c. coryi. I can see how someone unfamiliar with the cats would make that mistake. So I think we've been talking past each other to some degree, resulting in circular arguments. I'll set my preconceptions aside and give this some more thought over the weekend.Ecover 20:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh Christ Ecover, I'm perfectly aware of how the IUCN classifies it—we've already discussed this. As I say, if you want a tax box with two designations, mock it up. If you want to patronize, find someone else. Marskell 20:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If the editors knew, then why does the Florida panther taxbox now point to the IUCN listing for the Eastern cougar, an extinct animal, when the original box pointed correctly to the Florida panther IUCN listing?? And why is Kerr, 1792 given for the taxonomic authority when it has nothing to do with Culver's suggested revision? I was giving editors the benefit of the doubt that these were unintentional misdirections. I'm honestly trying to be helpful here, not patronizing.Ecover 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The taxobox was a cut-and-paste from North American Cougar. I presume it redirects to Eastern Cougar because that's the couguar listing, and that's the synonym chosen by MSW3. As noted, the IUCN's main source on Felidae is eleven years old, so I wouldn't put my eggs in that basket at the moment. The taxonomic authority lists the person who originally described a species, thus it's common to see 18th and 19th century names. Marskell 04:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The taxbox for the North American cougar page shouldn't point to the Eastern cougar IUCN link either! and the same editors seem to have set up the erroneous links on both pages. Both misdirections give the inaccurate impression that the IUCN has adopted Culver's proposed revisions. I'm not putting eggs in any basket - I'm just asking that readers not be misdirected to the wrong references. And to repeat my earlier point regarding Culver: no one is ignoring Culver: I provided 2 references that discussed Culver in some detail and explained why they continued to use coryi (small sample size, no examination of the type specimen, only 3 molecular markers considered, equivocal results). I'll mark up the taxbox and reference list later today to make the changes discussed, if that's okay. Note that Kerr, 1792, is the first description of the Eastern cougar as a unique subspecies of what is now Puma concolor. I'm pretty sure that this infra-specific authority must be augmented before being applied to Culver's proposed use of the same trinomial to encompass all the North American subspecies of Puma concolor. Otherwise we would lose the uniqueness of name/authority designations.Ecover 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow lots of debate over when Wikipedia should change a taxonomic name. I saw something similar in jaguarundi page. My opinion is that science is conservative meaning it doesn't often change after just one paper comes out. other articles will compare other methods, try to repeat the same methods etc. There are books like Walker's Mammals of the world that list accepted taxons, and we should use these accepted names, and the top article mention the new work and the review/rethinking it has caused. That makes the article match others that people will have read but still be current. IF the new name gets supported, Wikipedia edits it after it's become convention. but not immediately after a new article. What if Culver is wrong?--Paddling bear (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The you should support this taxon being downgraded because the canonical listing of mammalian taxonomy has downgraded it. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
just picked up on this discussion, albeit a year and a half too late. Why do you repeatedly refer to the "canonical" listing when it's already been stated many times that there is no one true authority, and that taxonomy is built off of consensus? I can see where you are going with the verifiabilty over truth claim, but it would seem that Ecover provided more than one source to back up his claim, whereas Marskell has repeatedly refered to the one source that he views as "canonical". One source doesn't trump all other sources. I don't see why there's any reason to change it just yet. Once there's a scientific consensus, then change it.
I've wondered this same thing, sense I see similar discussion on pages, such as the red wolf. I just looked MSW up in wikipedia's help, and just get a description, nothing saying it's the main source. Is there a link somewhere that would give us the heavy weight that Uther says Wiki wants to give MSW? I think this debate has gone on so long because neither side is completely wrong. One one hand we have people trying to make wikipedia more consistent, using whatever they were given (without a particular preference for it as I read the comments). On the other hand we have people who put more stock in the other publications. This issue of one 'canonical' source affects many pages not just FL panthers and red wolves.--Paddling bear (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Have you checked out MSW3's website? It is to 2005 what Walker's was to a previous time. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, from your link in the red wolf page, I've seen it. I'm not questioning MSW as a source, just wanted to know where Wikipedia said it'd be the main source, or whatever your using when you think of it as 'canonical'. Again, I'm not disagreeing, but since this same debate could happen on many species discussion lists, it seemed like something to put into the discussion page for MSW, which could then be linked to from any species page. Then, once we all know it's the major source, we can all agree to write the exceptions into the body of the article (like the red wolf page does). As long as th whole debate is laid out and we have redirects, I'm fine with it. I understand your desire for consistency.--Paddling bear (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


I am removing the population numbers from the intro. The citation is 2 years old and the article itself talks about as many as 118 kittens being born. Although not all of them survived, the number 87 is wrong and highly misleading.

Two years isn't that far out of date and the number isn't "highly misleading". Current total number of adults and juveniles hasn't increased that much in the interval. I think with a dated reference, it is appropriate.Pigkeeper 16:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Updated to 80 to 100, with current reference. Pigkeeper 16:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The most recent FWS estimate (as of 2011) is 100 to 160 individuals--William Stamps Howard (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Range maps would be nice[edit]

Historical range maps would make a great addition to the article. Would someone who has them please post them. Avram Primack (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I could probably get one from a report, maybe even, but I don't know what format Wikipedia takes, nor what size is standard for the right box.--Paddling bear (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Threat section is confusing[edit]

Here are my comments interjected into the posted text:


The threats seem to be habitat conversion and loss of genetic diversity. If so start the section by declaring this. Road kill is not the same as habitat conversion and should be included. I suggest that conservation is not a threat, and it should not be the banner of the section

Recovery efforts are currently underway in Florida to conserve the state's remaining population of native panthers. This is a difficult task, as the panther requires large contiguous areas of habitat —

Describe the problems first. They seem to be small population. List the observed effects of genetic inbreeding. Sperm motility...etc here...I know it exists in citable form. Put it in and cite it. Otherwise the genetic problem appears from nowhere to the casual reader.

each breeding unit, consisting of one male and two to five females, requires about 200 square miles (500 km2) of habitat.[9] A population of 240 panthers would require 8,000 to 12,000 square miles (31,000 km2) of habitat and sufficient genetic diversity in order to avoid inbreeding as a result of small population size. 

This is a separate topic that needs to be introduced and explained or made reasonable in the context of maintaining genetic diversity The introduction of eight female cougars from a closely related Texas population has apparently been successful in mitigating inbreeding problems.[10]

This is where the development lead sentence goes. This paragraph reads as if it were the topic paragraph for the section. I think it should go first.

Southern Florida is a fast-developing area, and declining habitat threatens this species. The two highest causes of mortality for the Florida panthers are automobile injuries and aggression between panthers for territory. The primary threats to the population as a whole include habitat loss, habitat degradation, and habitat fragmentation. The development at Ave Maria near Naples, is controversial for its location in prime panther habitat.[11]

In deference to the obviously interested people who wrote copious amounts above I have not interjected these edits into the article. I suspect that they are better qualified on the information, but not as great at editing. If I return to this article and these changes are not incorporated or these comments not responded to I will make the changes proposed.

I further suggest that this is an encyclopedia, and the taxonomic controversy is a subject worth covering. Rather than following any one camp each side should respectfully respond to the other or refer to a page where taxonomic naming issues are discussed. Otherwise the arguement is boring academics with no educational intent for the public.Avram Primack (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


I don't know what the intro was talking about with 'low tides' as a habitat. They're not coastal/beach animals. I removed it, but do we need a line somewhere to discuss more details of what habitats they've been documented using (flatwoods/saw palmetto, cabbage palm forests, etc.)?--Paddling bear (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Northward dispersal...Pros and cons[edit]

While the news from south Florida has generally been received as positive signs for the overall panther recovery effort, concern mounts about the northward dispersal into areas that have not seen, or even heard about, panthers in many years. Of particular concern to me are the heavily populated areas just south of and on into the Tampa Bay region, and the possibility of more and more panther/human interactions. Repeated over and over again is the official line that "panthers have never attacked a human in Florida..." but most of us, if honest, know that is whistling in the dark and hoping fervently that nothing ever does happen anywhere in Florida. We are all in agreement about that, I am sure. There is without question a lot at stake for the entire effort, and the safety of a public that is largely unaware of the possibilities must be paramount.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss these or related issues at our Website "" and would welcome the chance to be Linked to Wikipedia readers. We've been doing this for almost 18 years now, and if nothing else, we are aware that the number of different opinions concerning panther recovery are as numerous as the number of people that can type that opinion in.

Respectfully submitted for your review,

(BillyBy54 (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC))BillyBy54

Thanks for the photo[edit]

  • Thanks, from the bottom of my cat-loving ailurophile heart to whomever added the beautiful haunting photograph. Oh, you kitty Cat! Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources to expand upon "Genetic Depletion" section[edit]

Some of the sources I am considering to edit the "Genetic Depletion" section:

Pimm, S. L., L. Dollar, and O. L. Bass. "The Genetic Rescue of the Florida Panther." Animal Conservation 9.2 (2006): 115-22. Print.

Kardos, Marty, Helen R. Taylor, Hans Ellegren, Gordon Luikart, and Fred W. Allendorf. "Genomics Advances the Study of Inbreeding Depression in the Wild."Evolutionary Applications 9.10 (2016): 1205-218. Print.

Chadhanaoka (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Florida panther. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)