Talk:Dinofelis

Cats High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.CatsWikipedia:WikiProject CatsTemplate:WikiProject CatsCats articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

METHOD[edit]

How did the dinofelis kill its prey?

Split[edit]

There is no way to actually know other than to observe fossils for injury attributable to Dinofelis teeth or bite. Even then there will be some speculation involved.

Most neofelids bite prey roughly their size or larger on the throat covering the trachea or the muzzle covering the mouth and nose causing suffocation, the neck or head causing enough trauma to kill, drag and/or weight the animal down to do the above or often beginning to feed without death with multiple felids. There is no reason to not believe the same instincts and higher processes still operate in neofelids as they did 5 mya. Jaguars and leopards do bite the skull more often than do lions. Lions and cheetah are more likely to bite and hold over the trachea but they all use multiple ways of killing including mauling. Male lions will often maul hyenas including grabbing and throwing and repeated bites.

The teeth of Dinofelis are more conical than blade like and I suspect they killed like neofelids did. Those teeth are for grabbing and holding with enough canine to puncture the skin. Certainly one can speculate the longer canines, longer even relatively than a snow leopard, could cause more damage than shorter canines especially with skull and neck bites. However, I suspect from observation that it doesn't make much difference to the victims who die from the shorter canine bites easily. I do not suspect Dinofelis killed like true saber cats though. Jobberone (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canine length[edit]

And... How much long were it's fangs aproximately?

Body length[edit]

Just to compare, their principal measurment, length I guess or height if you prefer, what was it?

Order[edit]

Who changed it to "Big Booty Bitches"? I think reparations and reprimands are in order here. 2604:2000:F620:5700:D80B:8DFB:691C:A (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogeny and Tribe[edit]

Some users seem adamant it must be mentioned in the first sentence that Dinofelis is a "metailurin". The validity of this clade, however, has been challenged in a very recent paper, and as such it may result in miscommunication to the majority of readers for it to be mentioned so early on in the article, as if there is no contention to the classification. Please advise. Wikitherium (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of the clade has been challenged, yes, in one, recent paper- and is still accepted by the rest of the field. Wikipedia does not change based on what is most recent but on what is accepted. Mentioning that Dinofelis is considered a metailurin is pertinent information for the lede. The new, lone challenge is what should be discussed (but only as much as DUEWEIGHT allows) later on. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are partially right, however - unless I am mistaken - Wikipedia also reports information transparently and honestly. Mentioning that Dinofelis is a metailurin in the first sentence infers to readers very early on that this is not contentious, which is confusing (if it is later revealed that this is subject to contention) and misinformative. Happy editing. Wikitherium (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also kindly like there to be a little more substantial evidence presented that the validity of Metailurini is still accepted by the rest of the field, or even is consensus to begin with. Thus far, only one paper has been cited. Wikitherium (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That one paper is cited because it specifically notes that the consensus in the field is that Dinofelis belongs to Metailurini. Calling that placement contentious is itself misleading, because thus far only one has challenged that consensus- and a challenge of one is only that. In a similar vein, there are lone challengers to many other paleontological hypotheses, including that birds are dinosaurs- none of those lone challengers make the hypothese contentious. SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birds are dinosaurs, but that’s a very different situation to this. Especially when lacking genetic material for phylogenetic analysis, tribes are seldom stable or well resolved clades, and the paper suggesting Metailurini is invalid is not made in the same pseudoscientific vein most BAND papers are. Please do not conflate this situation with that of the BANDit movement. Wikitherium (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not conflating it, I was pointing out that one challenge does not undo consensus. Thus, Dinofelis is a metailurin until consensus changes and the challenge to Metailurini's monophyly, per DUEWEIGHT, should remain in the relevant section. SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again: your consensus is based on a 2001 paper. This is not suitable two decades later. Wikitherium (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will also be editing the introduction further tomorrow and taking this further where necessary - sorry, but stating the metailurin placement that confidently so early on is not honest communication to readers. Wikitherium (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, presenting the challenge so early on is WP:UNDUE weight, which is the dishonesty. Stating consensus is not dishonest, it is good practice. SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again: tribes are not well resolved clades. This is not WP:UNDUE weight, it is plain and simple fact sadly inherent to taxonomy at this level of precision. And one 2001 paper does not make a consensus in 2023. Will continue editing tomorrow. Wikitherium (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are papers that retain Dinofelis in Metailurini as recently as 2021. Paleontological consensus rarely changes quickly. SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to tribe classification, they can do and do so often when new data is incorporated into phylogenetic matrices.

If you did not already know: morphologically based phylogenies, especially among close relative, are inherently unstable due to the high probability of character convergence among closely related taxa (see various updates to tribes of extant animals following genomic analyses in history).

The only reason they do not often change in palaeontology is because of a lack of data.

Given this fact, it is not pertinent to refer to Dinofelis as, confidently, a metailurin in the introduction. Wikitherium (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]