Talk:Saber-toothed cat

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Cats (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance) v t e 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  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Mammals (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance) v t e 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  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance) v t e 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  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Extinction (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance) v t e This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

.

There's still a few things I want to do with this page.

Most importantly, some of the genera in the table may be ancestral to one another - if that's the case then sabertoothed characteristics did NOT evolve independently in the younger genus. I would like to make that very clear. A pretty family tree would be nice, I think.

After that, I think I'll add entries on each of the genera in the table. That's the least I could do. ClockworkTroll 05:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

80.218.57.163 (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC) I think we need in this page a description about how

Something to add later

From http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:TQjhL-e2Y2IJ:www.natur.cuni.cz/~vpetr/Broom.htm+Thylacosmilid&hl=en&client=firefox-a

One of the most popular heterogeneous group comprising repeatedly evolved identical bauplan are sabre-toothed carnivores possessing blade-like, very long and slender upper canine teeth. Very similar sabretooths appeared at various times and various places during the approximately 50-million-year history. They occurred repeatedly and independently in at least four distinct mammalian groups: in completely extinct nimravids, hyaenodontid creodonts, thylacosmilid marsupials, as well as in modern felids. In every time they coexisted succeessfully with their short-canined relatives, and it seems to be a matter of chance that we have no sabretooth with us today (Radinsky and Emerson 1982).

The bolded information should be integrated into the article when possible. Maybe change article name to "saber-tooth" ?

ClockworkTroll 06:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Saber-tooth" is good. The alternative is saber-toothed cat-like mammals or the equivalent, which is clumsy and a poor natural link. "Saber-toothed cat" should actually be a redirect to Machairodontinae, not a separate page describing the saber-toothed phenomenon, since that's probably what is intended when someone makes that link (I know I did).

I also added an abbreviated cladogram; I think it makes it clearer how distantly related some of the saber-toothed mammals are from each other, both by showing and referring not just to when they existed, but when they diverged from their most recent common ancestor. Very incomplete at the moment.

-Pat 05:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Display

The wording If this is the case, it would support the theory that sabertooths were social animals, is misleading. Talk to a moose which has extraordinary display structure but are not social in the sense used here. If I can develop better wording I'll change it. 208.114.132.151 17:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

True cats?

This article does not clearly state if Saber-tooth cats are true cats nor does it state that Saber-tooth cat is a board term conposing many orders. Someone mind fixing this? 71.135.35.5 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is completely nonsense in my eyes. Saber-toothed cats (Machairodontinae) are true cats (they belong to the family Felidae) but the false saber toothed cats, like Hoplophoneus , which are erroneously called saber-tooths in this article, belong to the family Nimravidae.--Altaileopard 22:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

no link to sabre?

Stange that in all the article no mention of what a sabre actually is. GraemeLeggett 16:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

barbourofelidae

Barbourofelidae are no longer considered a sub-family of nimravidae and should be classified as a family of their own in the phylogeny section Laurence Browning 18:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

do you have sources for that? but we should probably discuss that at Talk:Nimravidae.--Altaileopard 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nimravids are no Saber toothed cats

The Nimravidae are usually called false saber-toothed cats (not sabre toothed cats) and the sparassodonta should also not be called saber-tooths. That are the main reasons, why I would like to see this article deleted.--Altaileopard 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly a discussion of the saber-toothed phenomenon (not the cats per se), which is of both popular and scientific interest[1], and thus encyclopedic. Deletion is entirely inappropriate. The article is simply misnamed. "Cat" should be removed from the title, and the current title should redirect to Machairodontinae. —Pat 11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, i agree. Probably it would be better to move this article to saber-toothed predator, however some publications call species, which do not belong to the felidae saber-toothed cats. hmmmm.--Altaileopard (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hyaenodont sabertooth?

What were some genera of "sabertoothed" hyaenodonts? I do know of Machaeroides and Machaeroidinae, but those are in dispute over which family they should be placed in.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou

To who ever created this page thanks alot, it is very well layed out and very helpful when comparing all the speciecs of sabertooths. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomic system in the list

I rearranged the list based on higher taxons to make it more clear, but I don´t like the layout of the new topics very much. Any ideas, to make it nicer?--Altaileopard (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh keep it the way it was before you made the changes, it was fine the way it was. I am reverting your edit but keeping your deletion oh Therailurus and Dinobastis. If you wish to revert my edit then address me on this talk page please. Thanks TeePee-20.7 (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was also not completely happy with my edit, that´s why I wrote here at the talk page. If you like it better as it was, I wil keep away from this article. But I don´t understand why everybody is cheering up this article so much. It consists only of two lists and the upper of them is actually very bad. All genera are pasted unsorted in a long list and you can not see which family they belong to. Some invalid generea are still in the list and not all of them are saber-toothed predators. Dinaelurus for example was a conical-toothed nimravid [2]. Cheers, --Altaileopard (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Portrayal in fiction

Would it not be a good idea to add a section on the saber-toothed cat's portrayal in fiction? It appears quite often, and a debunking section would be nice. I for one would like to know if any of the species were as large as the ones often portrayed to be nearly the size of elephants. 72.195.189.98 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an awesome idea! Every article I know has such a section. Angie Y. (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this question is over a year old, but just in case: none approached elephant size. Smilodon populator was the largest, 120cm at the shoulder and 300+ kg, maybe up to 400kg, in big individuals.Vultur (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Saber or sabre?

The title of the page is saber-toothed cat, but it is spelled sabre in the first paragraph.

Can one of these be fixed?

Jabberwockgee (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Obvious questions

Did their long teeth help their survival or did the long teeth result in extinction? What caused the elongated teeth: inbreeding; genetic characteristic amplification?Lestrade (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Good point (no pun intended). It seems to me that for the canines to be of any use when actually biting an object that was too large to bypass them, the mouth would have to open ridiculously far. I think it possible the canines may have been of survival value for attacking or defensive strikes that took place while the mouth was closed. Brigman (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The fossil record strongly suggests that saber-toothed cats' saber teeth either helped them persist for tens of millions of years, or did not hinder them. Also, there are many hypotheses suggesting that the saber teeth were used to shear or tear out chunks of flesh, or to tear out the throat/trachea of prey. Injuries, especially of fangs being caught in bone, also suggest that the saber teeth were used in fighting, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

DNA

In the Genes Sabertooth a Relative of Modern-Day Big Cats, DNA Tests Show http://articles.latimes.com/1992-10-29/news/we-956_1_big-cat

Molecular phylogenetic inference from saber-toothed cat fossils www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC50214/ 24.228.23.185 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Saber toothed marsupials

When are these ever referred to as saber-toothed cats? If they aren't, they don't belong in this article, apart from maybe a "see also". FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Even a lot of scientific publications call all saber toothed mammalian predators "saber-toothed cats", even if they don´t belong to the family Felidae. (Saber-toothed cats; Fossils explained). It is a bit confusing, but the term felid is usually used for the Felidae, whereas cat is often used for cat-like animals e.g. Nimravidae --Altaileopard (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sabre-toothed cat or Sabre-toothed tiger ?

Is there a difference between the names Sabre-toothed cat & Sabre-toothed tiger ? By that I mean are the two names used for the same species or for different species ? Is one the correct name, because I've heard that their correct name is Sabre-toothed cat. And also I've argued with people that believe that the Saber-toothed cat/ tiger couldn't exist because they couldn't open their mouth wide enough to hunt (by that I mean do what some big cats do today by crushing the throat with their jaws) or even eat. So how did they hunt & eat ? 80.254.146.140 (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

See my comments below regarding the name, also check out the University of California website that I added a link to.

Indicate that these are also called "Saber-toothed tigers"

Edited page to make it clear that this is the same group of animals that are commonly called "saber-toothed tigers" (at least when I was growing up in California in the '90s), and why calling them "tigers" is no longer a best practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.46.68 (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What's with the "subfamilies" stuff?

In the introduction it reads "These animals consist of the subfamilies" and then it lists a subfamily and a couple family taxons. Seems a bit confusing. 84.198.53.190 (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The introduction could be cleaned up & clarified.Animalparty (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

For now, I replaced "subfamilies" with "taxa," as not all of the groups mentioned are subfamilies.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Citations/references needed throughout

Quality sources and inline citations are desperately needed throughout. Additionally, a "See Also" section should be added near the bottom to redirect interested (or confused) readers to other saber-toothed beasts, such as Thylacosmilus and kin. Animalparty (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted...

to change every "mya" on the page to "nya".

You are all idiots. Unless you are writing for a small clique of dorks, WTF is a MYA... and what is the point of giving me information, that requires me to look up another looooooong Wiki article about what a mya is.

The effort you folks put into this is admirable, but making it usable to a normal reader (that is after all the concept behind an encyclopedia, educating the normal folk) should be your overarching goal.

Dork on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.227.25 (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's million year ago, very simpleTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Machairodont

So what is a "machairodont"? The first mention in the article is "Because of their primitiveness, they are extremely easy to tell from machairodonts." Since we have not yet been told what a macharidont is, this is not particularly useful. Coffee and walnut (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is apparently using the machairodonts (i.e., the branch of Felidae that became saber-toothed true cats) as a template with which to compare all other saber-toothed mammal groups. It would be better to give a brief description of each group, and try to avoid comparisons in these descriptions as much as possible.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If that's what a machairodont is, fine. But the article needs to say so. Coffee and walnut (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hard to tell apart

"These carnivores are very closely related to actual cats, and as such, they are hard to tell apart." Actually, I think I would have very little difficulty distinguishing a sabre-tooth tiger from an actual cat. The clue would be in the teeth. What, if anything, is this sentence supposed to mean? Coffee and walnut (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Are we talking about the nimravids, barbourofelids, or the machairodont felids? The first two are distinct families from Felidae, after all.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The sentence quoted is referring to barbourofelids. But I still think it would be easy to distinguish one from an "actual cat". Perhaps the sentence is intended to convey that barbourofelids are hard to distinguish from machairodonts? Coffee and walnut (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Smilodon

Are we expected to know ahead of time that Smilodon is a genus of sabre-tooth tiger? The first mention in the article is "Evidence from the numbers found at La Brea Tar Pits suggests that Smilodon, like modern lions, was a social carnivore" and so I have to guess that Smilodon is an example of what the article is about (the wording suggests by the position of the comma, that Smilodon was an ancient lion). Is is supposed to be a typical genuss, so that we can plausibly assume that other genera were social? Or is it exceptional in being social? Or do we simply not know? Given that Smilodon article describes it as "best-known" it needs a better introduction into the text. Coffee and walnut (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand, Smilodon is often portrayed to be the "archetypical sabertooth," though, I personally think that that sentence should be changed because, from what little we know, the social behaviors of sabertooths most likely varied drastically.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Pointers

There is something odd about the pointers into this article. Trying to get back to it after a break, I typed saber tooth tiger into the search box and got to Smilodon. Should I not have got to this article instead? Coffee and walnut (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Evolutionary ratchet

The phrasing "these creatures would be unable to adapt to smaller prey or consume other sources of food, and would be unable to reduce their size so as to need less food" seems unfortunate. Of course the creatures were unable to reduce their size: no mammal can do that, except by biting off one of its appendages. What the source states it that it is rare for large predators to adapt to declining prey numbers by evolving into smaller or less specialised forms and that in most cases they go extinct instead. Coffee and walnut (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we borrow your phrase to replace the current sentence?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course! It is probably worth mentioning Cope's rule and Dollo's law at this point in the article too. Coffee and walnut (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

References

The DOI in the van Valkenburgh reference is wrong. The one in the footnotes is correct. For some reason I am unable to edit the article to correct it. Coffee and walnut (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Saber-tooth genera

The family tree in this section mentions Proailurus, Pseudaelurus, and Subfamily Felinae, without making it in any way clear that these are not sabre-toothed. Should they be there at all, and if they are, they should be distinguished somehow. On the other hand, families Barbourofelidae and Nimravidae are missing. What does this tree mean? Coffee and walnut (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with scope in this article. Not all of the saber-tooths are referred to as cats (goprgonopsians, marsupials, etc.), so the title is misleading, and may need to be changed. Saber toothed cats specifically refers to machairodonts. Pinging LittleJerry, to make him aware of the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2015

Problem with scope/disambiguation

So the above request seemed rather futile, as most commentators didn't seem to bother reading the article or the arguments for some reason, to familiarise themselves with the problem. Saber-toothed cat and saber-toothed predator (or whatever we call it) are two different, though related, concepts. The latter includes the former, not the way around. The problem is, the title of this article refers to a smaller group within a larger group. Therefore, we need two separate pages: one called saber-toothed cat, which is about the smaller group, and one called saber-tooth something (carnivore, predator, whatever, as sabertooth is occupied), for the wider group, which is what this article is currently about, hence the incorrect name. And no, SmokeyJoe, this has absolutely nothing to do with somehow violating common name policies. The title "saber-toothed cat" would be retained, just in another article, most probably as a dab page, as explained in the prior discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree with your interpretation with the knowledge of others. This article has historically been mainly about what is known as "sabre-tooth cats", whether or not that is an accurate concept in modern taxonomy. As such, the history of the article should stay here, other things moved out, and if no real article can be written on this subject accurately, turn it into a WP:CONCEPTDAB. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, as has pointed out again and again above, gorgonopsians, creodonts and marsupials are never referred to as "cats" by any writers, yet this article is about those as well, consistent with the broader "saber-tooth" concept. Just read the article to find out, the intro states it, so does the morphology and "saber-toothed genera" sections. That is the problem here, which others knowledgeable about palaeontology have confirmed as well above. FunkMonk (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• So here is an example of how a saber-toothed cat disambiguation page would look:

A saber-toothed cat is a member of feliformia (cat-like carnivorans) with saber-tooth adaptations (will link to this current article with another name), which includes members of the folowing families:

Felids:

• Machairodontinae
  • Metailurini (false-saber-tooths)
  • Homotherini (scimkitar-toothed cats)
  • Smilodontini (dirk-toothed cats)

Non-felid feliforms

• Barbourofelidae
• Nimravidae

Do you have a reference for your definition of "sabre-tooth cat"? I understand the term to be a generic, loosely defined, verging on modern mythology, because there was no such specific thing. I suspect you are trying to apply revisionism. I think that "sabre-tooth cat" is correctly loosely defined to encompass any cat-like sabre toothed thing, including some gorgonopsians, creodonts and marsupials. How familiar are you with the concept of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Broad-concept_articles? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are incorrect, as a simple Google scholar search would have shown, and sources have already been mentioned in the former section. The term "saber-toothed" is used in the scientific literature to refer to various groups of mammals and relatives with such features. For a few examples:[5][6][7][8][9][10] A more layman friendly account is the recent book sabertooth:[11] Saber-toothed cat refers specifically to feliforms/felids with such features. Yes, some popular accounts may refer to non-felids as "saber-toothed cats", but such accounts also refer to plesiosaurs and pterosaurs as "dinosaurs", and we are not here to spread misconceptions just because they are "common". FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree that sabre-toothed cat refers specifically to anything specific. The term has been used for a long time more generally. This needs to be a generally written Broad concept article linking to the more technically correct things. All of your links confirm to me that the phrase "sabre-toothed cat" is avoided, that the term is not well defined, and you last one even acknowledges this historic association with any sabre-toothed cat-like animal. Further, it contnues to be common for many cat-like animals that are like cats to be referred to as cats. Civet cats, genet cats, fossas, bearcats. The usage of cat is simply not restricted to felidae, but frequently is used according to morphological similarities. You may call this a misconception, but the best solution is to convert this page not to a disambiguation page structured as a taxonomy listing, but to a broad concept article acknowledging the the usage in practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree that saber-toothed cat never refers to anything specific. As a kid, I learned about "saber tooth tigers" in the genus Smilodon; slightly later, I came across the idea that "saber tooth tiger" is an incorrect common name, as Smilodon isn't a tiger, and the "correct" common name for these beasts is "saber tooth cat" (they are cats). See [12] and [13] for sources that specifically mention Smilodon and claim that "saber tooth tiger" is an incorrect name. Smilodon is by far the best known saber tooth, and there are quite a few incoming links to this article that could instead go to Smilodon. There are also a lot of incoming pop culture links that are animals almost certainly inspired by Smilodon, but in the absence of any in-universe source can't be confidently linked there (although in-universe source may perhaps identify the animals as "saber tooth tigers" with that term having been "corrected" on Wikipedia). Plantdrew (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I misread, I thought SmokeyJoe questioned whether "sabertooth" alone referred to anything specific, not "saber-toothed cat". And yet again, all one has to do is to make a simple Google Scholar search, the most rudimentary of research. Here are some examples of using the term synonymously with machairodontinae (felid saber-tooths), as is the norm in the scientific literature:[14][15][16][17][18] And again, the book I mentioned before makes the distinction clear, even in the short blurb:[19] So yet again, both terms are in use, one is just more inclusive than the other. We should follow the published literature, not whatever uninformed misconceptions we might have. Otherwise, whales can just as well be fish, and everything extinct can be a dinosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree; the creodonts and marsupials are only mentioned in the "Saber-toothed evolutionary tree" section, which seems pretty redundant as it is because there's already a cladogram describing their relationship in the "Saber-tooth genera" section. The rest of the article talks about the felids, so, if anything, just take out that redundant section. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 23:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No, as I already said, they are discussed in the intro, under morphology, and evolution, so the article is clearly intended to be about the broader group. The Biology section is even more general. In fact, all sections except for "prey" appear to be about the group as a whole. FunkMonk (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

The second paragraph is poorly written and contradicts information later in the article, specifically the cladogram entitled "Saber-tooth genera." The cladogram clearly shows that members of Machairodontinae are a subfamily of Felidae, and hence are related to cats Felinae and Lions/Tiger/Etc Pantherinae. It is obviously incorrect to say that all Saber-toothed cats are unrelated to modern cats! Another issue with this paragraph is that it says that saber tooth cats are not members of Felidae, yet Machairodontinar are indeed members of Felidae! WTH!

This page is important in showing that not all sabertoothed cats are Machairodontinae; and that convergent evolution brought these large teeth to more than one order and family. Can we change the this paragraph?

Here is how I edited it, but the edits were deleted by Apokryltaros. Not sure why. Please provide feedback.

Suggestion Start***

The most well know saber-toothed cat is the Smilodon, which is popularly known as a Saber Toothed Tiger. Smiliodon is one member of the subfamily Machairodontinae. Many saber-toothed cats belong to the taxonomic subfamily Machairodontinae, which is a member of the cat family Felidae, member of the order Carnivora. Other members of Felidae include modern cats Felinae and Pantherinae.

However, some saber-toothed cats are not related to modern cats; they are not members of Felidae, and are instead members of related families Barbourofelidae and Nimravidae from the "cat-like" carnivoran suborder Feliformia; taxa of the family [Oxyaenidae]], specifically from genus Machaeroides; and two lineages of metatherian mammals, the thylacosmilids and deltatheroideans, which are more closely related to marsupials than to the placental mammals of the other orders mentioned. In this regard, saber-thoothed cats can be viewed as an example of Convergent evolution.

Suggestion End***

I am not a wikipedia expert, so I don't know how to contact Apokryltaros directly. Someone help! Axsvl77 (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Just do your edit, if it gets reversed again, bring it up here, and we can take the other editor to task. If they edit-war, an admin will step in. This article is in a messy state - the 'marsupial lions' shouldn't even be part of an article on saber-toothed cats. 20:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.176.224 (talk)

Thanks! I just did a second reversal. Axsvl77 (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it actually a 'misnomer'?

"However, usage of the word cat is a misnomer, as most saber-toothed "cats" are not related to modern cats of Felidae: instead, many are members of other feliform carnivoran families, such as Barbourofelidae and Nimravidae; the oxyaenid "creodont" genera Machaeroides and Apataelurus; and two lineages of metatherian mammals, the thylacosmilids and deltatheroideans, which are more closely related to marsupials than to the placental mammals of the other orders mentioned. In this regard, saber-toothed cats can be viewed as examples of convergent evolution."

Most of these taxons aren't even referred to as saber-toothed cats, especially not oxyaenids (but I could be wrong). In fact, nimravids and barbourfelids are referred to as false saber-tooths. For the 'saber-toothed cat', the most popular animals that come to mind are felids like Smilodon and Homotherium. The wording of this passage could potentially imply to readers that machairodontines were not cats either.

Would it be better to write something like "Although the machairodontine felids are typically the animals referred to as 'saber-toothed cats', many other animals unrelated to Felidae (and thus, not true cats) took on a similar morphology, such as (etc)"? --TangoFett (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd change "other animals unrelated to Felidae" to "other animals outside of Felidae," as barbourofelids and nimravids are still related to true cats (all three being within Feliformes, after all).--Mr Fink (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the name of this article is not appropriate for the scope, see this earlier move request.[20] FunkMonk (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2016

Reason For Reverting

@CCevol2016:, please understand that I keep reverting your edits because your edits are:

• Poorly written grammatically
• Introduce incorrect information by saying Thylacosmilidae are marsupials even though they are now considered sparassodonts
• Remove information in the form of removing mention of the deltatheroideans
• Introduce unimportant information in the form of talking about Nimravidae's status within Feliformes, which is not important in an article about several unrelated groups, and would be more relevant in an article about the evolution of Feliformes or Nimravidae.

These are the reasons why I keep reverting you, please take the time to understand.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Sabre Tooth Taxonomy

Can the saber-tooth evolution tree be change to (or have a sub-unit) called saber-tooth taxonomy/phylogeny because thats what it showing, the taxonomy of the saber-tooth, not it's evolution. Edit: Also, tell me the difference between phylogeny and taxonomy. 208.114.41.213 (talk) 5:47, 7 December 2016 (Central Time)

• Phylogeny is based on genetics, using genetics to to construct an evolutionary tree of descent. Taxonomy is about characteristics as observed, similar to morphology. Taxonomy groups big cat-like creatures together, even though phylogenetically they are very far separated. Phylogeny and taxonomy can differ considerably in cases of convergent evolution, and this topic must be one of the most extreme examples. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw the edit, thank you! When I saw "saber-tooth evolution tree" I knew it was wrong.208.114.41.213 (talk) 6:29, 7 December 2016 (Central Time)

Split

Ok, so for various reasons, the earlier move requests ended without any consensus. But the title still doesn't match the scope, which is de-facto all saber-toothed predators that ever lived, not just saber toothed cats (which, as demonstrated earlier, is not a term which is used in the literature for many of the groups covered here). So if this is not moved to a more inclusive title, we have to create a new article which covers the concept of saber-toothed predator/ecomorph in general (whatever the title-name ends up as), and restrict this article to those animals that have specifically been referred to as saber-toothed cats (animals within feliformia). FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I was considering creating an article on Sabertooth (predator) (or simply Sabertooth, if we usurp the redirect) to discuss all the animals with this adaptation, and removing everything from here that isn't a feliform sabertooth. At that point, we may have to consider just doing away with this article because it will be redundant, but hey, it's a process.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Also agree. Though, one last quibble, in that, once this goes through, we would move Thylacosmilus (along with Inostrancevia and others) off of this page, whereupon we would then be left with the barbourfelids, nimravids, machairodontids, etc?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Seems redundant to me, but since we can't seem to get this moved to a more appropriate title, I'm not sure what else to do. And by the way the (megafauna) is inappropriate, since many sabertoothed predators were quite small (Machaeroides, Lycaenops, etc.). (Quadruped) is just too generic to be meaningful. Tiarajudens and Titanoides were quadrupedal and had "saberteeth", but as herbivores, they are not covered by the term. What the relevant animals have in common is that they were predators. (Carnivore) could work, but people may confuse it for carnivora. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's not focus too much on the disambiguation, which is part of how the discussion got off track in the first place. We should focus on getting the article and its content off the ground. Once that's done we can discuss if there's a better disambiguator. It can even be started in user space and then moved later once the basics are assembled.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is generally about feliform sabre-tooths. The biology sections and the phylogeny section only deal with the "cats". The morphology section is the one where the article seems to go off topic and perhaps this can be addressed by changing the organisation of that section. For instance, it could be started by saying the sabre-tooth morphology developed three (arguable four if we add Nimravides) times in the feliform carnivores. Describe them with a paragraph each. Then add that the sabre tooth morphology has developed independently in at least four other older mammalian groups, which can be dealt with in a single paragraph. I'd cut the others out of the taxonomy section and change the lede to emphasize the difference between false and true sabre toothed cats (with just a passing reference to others, if at all). A separate article on sabre-toothed carnivores in general is a good idea, though, as it is a morphology that evolved, grew big and then died out many times within a relatively narrow time period. Jts1882 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

What you describe will be the consequence of the proposed split anyhow; the "new" article will be about the ecomorphological niche as a whole. The question is, why even have an article only focused on sabertoothed cats specifically? The only reason seems to be so we can preserve an article with such a title, but it will generally just be a WP:Content fork. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Because the sabre-toothed cats and false sabre-tooths are some of the most notable extinct animals. In the public imagination they are up there with mammoths as the best known extinct mammals. It would be strange not to have an article on them. A more general article on the ecomorphs is obviously also of interest. Having it separate would allow the ecological and adaptive aspects to be explored more neutrally, without an over-emphasis on the better known cats. I think this separation could benefit both articles. An alternative might be a more general article on carnivore strategies, including a discussion of cat-like, dog-like and hyaena-like ecomophs (e.g. along the lines of the discussion in Van Valkenburgh (2007). Then the sabre-toothed and bone-crushing ecomorphs could be picked out as extreme examples with multiple occurences. This is a much bigger undertaking, though. Jts1882 (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

There are already articles about them: Machairodontinae, Nimravidae, and Barbourofelidae. But that is not the issue, no one is talking about removing those articles. The issue is why we need to have a separate article dealing with just these three groups, simply so we can have the word "cat" in the title. But that outcome is better than what we have now, in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This is so simple, change the name to Saber-tooth Cat(ecomorphic phenomenon)TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't solve anything, as the problem is that thew words "cat" itself is too restrictive to what this article covers. This article could be renamed saber toothed predator, then saber toothed cat could be a disambig page for the feliforms. 12:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)FunkMonk (talk)

Which mammals have the saber-tooth morphology?

As possible preparation for a split, I thought it might be interesting to discuss which mammals should be included. Many mammals have large canines for various reasons (hippos, babboons, musk deer, taeniodonts), but this is not enough. Is carnivory and long canines sufficient, or is it associated with other morphological features of the skull (sagital crest, or the build in general (stocky, short-limbed)? While looking at this I have reservations about inclusion of the Deltatheroida. The reference given for Lotheridium doesn't mention a saber-tooth adaptation. It describes a long canine that is transversely compressed, but is this sufficient for the conclusion that it is an early saber-tooted adaptation. On the other hand, the Arctocyonidae might have a better case. The website paleocene-mammals.de states the following:

"It is noteworthy that some arctocyonids started to develop a saber-tooth dentition, the type of teeth that is most widely known from saber-toothed cats but occurs independently in other mammals like the marsupial saber-tooth Thylacosmilus. Among arctocyonids this trend can first be seen in Mentoclaenodon from the middle Paleocene fissure fillings of Walbeck, Germany. With an estimated skull length of about 15 cm this rare form is the largest mammal of the Walbeck fauna. Mentoclaenodon has particularly large upper canines that are crenulated at the back, and it shows a beginning expansion of the chin region as this is often associated with saber-teeth. In Anacodon, the late Paleocene to early Eocene terminal form of the large North American arctocyonids, the chin is developed into a large flange to protect the saber-like upper canines. These arctocyonids may have been the first carnivore-like mammals ever to evolve this type of dentition."

Unfortunately it doesn't give specific references, just general references at the end. I'll try and follow up and check the general references and some other sources. This sort of more general and arguably speculative expansion of sabre-toothed predators is much more suitable in a dedicated article than in this one. Jts1882 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, this is only used to refer to predators, and it also includes other skull and skeleton features. According to Antón 2013, the relevant groups are: Gorgonopsia, Thylacosmilidae, Machaeroidinae, Nimravidae, Barbourofelidae, and Machairodontinae. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. So why does the article include Deltatheroida/Lotheridium? Jts1882 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

No idea, the cited article doesn't seem to mention saber-teeth, so it is probably WP:original research by whoever added it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It's been confirmed that the Deltatheroida were carnivores. And since apparently the criteria for this page is that something is both a carnivore and possesses Saber-teeth-type dentition. As it fits the criteria it's inclusion seems justified, Also if the Arctocyonids were carnivores, then include them as well.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I know why their teeth were so big.

It is because it allows them to hook onto a large prey's body and be carried along as it runs. You can't chase or stalk too much in cold weather or you'll burn too many calories and starve. It would also explain why they had such strong necks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-E-N-O-V-A (talk • contribs) 05:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with TP rules - no Original Research, WP:FORUM, etc.50.111.22.143 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, J-E-N-O-V-A speaks to a good point. It is well known why big canine teeth are advantageous, and yet the article doesn’t cover it. It is a reason for improving the article by adding sourced material discussing “the advantages of big canine teeth”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If the specific idea isn't discussed in an actual source, then no, we should not mention it here. Furthermore, the areas where Smilodon lived weren't cold, so the premise is incorrect. The article already discusses in depth what actual researchers have proposed for teeth funcitons. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The article does contain this: "The elongated teeth also aided with strikes reaching major blood vessels in these large mammals. However, the precise functional advantage of the saber-toothed cat's bite, particularly in relation to prey size, is a mystery." Is a mystery. An unsourced non-statement. The next paragraph goes on to talk about gape.

Google returns heaps of stuff.

"to cut through the tough and often armored hides" https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-sabercats-use-their-fangs-180962604/ This source argues that all ideas, common as these ideas are, are all speculative.

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2004/01/6529.html Computer modelling retro-engineering to find the answer! "To test Mendel's own hypothesis that Smilodon's fangs were used to cut the throats of prey, rather than suffocate them as modern cats do" Describing future work to test one's own hypothesis, OK maybe?

These teeth are thought to have been too weak to withstand being jabbed into struggling prey http://panoptesv.com/RPGs/animalia/mammalia/eutheria/carnivora/felidae/SaberTooth.html

https://www.amnh.org/about-the-museum/press-center/saber-toothed-cats-s-canines-took-years-to-grow says that Smilodon fatalis didn't develop its sabre teeth until three years old, which I think allows us to conclude that the sabre teeth were not required for survival in the first three years.

I think my earlier words were plain wrong. It is a bit of a mystery. I am starting to suspect that they could even be a feature for sexual selection, like a peacock's tail.

I think there is definitely potential to improve the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, we are not going to add anything to the article based on speculations of editors. What can be done, however, is to add additional peer reviewed studies (if any can be found, one relevant one was removed a while ago by someone claiming it was a "predatory journal"), not pop science articles and press releases (and RPG instructions?!) as those linked above. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Request For Better inclusion of the Deltatheroida

This page is a bit of a misnomer, but that has been discussed in other topics. An issue that seems to have not been addressed in quite some time. The original version of this page did not feature this group, which makes sense as it had not been discovered at the time. However once discovered this group was awkwardly shoved into the page without much consideration of inclusion. For example, there is a set of photos which depict the different groups. In that set there is a sufficiently sized blank space for an image to be placed. That combined with a skip from the 1st instance to the third instance justifies the editing of that section.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@TheDarkMaster2: Deltatheroida was included in the gallery earlier versions of the article. The image File:Lotheridium bust.png was deleted from Wikimedia Commons copyright violation and two bots edited this page, one removed the image and a second the blank box in the gallery. So the removal of Deltatheroida from this page was not made by a human editor. To add it back we need a suitable image. I've asked the copyright holder of the original image for help, but I don't think he is a regular editor so don't expect a quick response if at all.   Jts1882 | talk  08:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

What would constitute a good image for the deltatheroida? My brother is an artst and he would be willing to do art for the article if he was requested.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Living?

In two places in the Lead paragraph, it states that the saber-tooth cats have living examples, However, I've looked through the rest of the article, but can find no reference to these living examples. Am I missing them, and if so, can it be clarified and made easier to find? Thanks. -BilCat (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Occasionally you see unconvincing arguments that clouded leopards (Neofelis) are saber-toothed because they have large teeth (not the exactly the same thing). Now you mention it, I see that clouded leopards are listed (tribe Neofelini) in the taxonomy section. I think this should be removed, not least because it is unsourced. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"Incorrect"

Pinging Apokryltaros, after reverting my edit. I want to explain my reasons, since I think as it stands this sentence isn't great. In general, I find it unhelpful to try to force technical-ness in common names for taxa. It comes across as unnecessarily pedantic to say that "saber tooth tiger" is incorrect, especially given that is an extremely common usage. In particular, simply saying that it's incorrect without saying why is too terse. My edit solves both of these issues. It's precise about why "saber tooth tiger" isn't a great term without pontificating on whether it's right or wrong to use. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 17:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but, the very next sentences go on to explain how and why in detail it's incorrect to refer to species of Smilodon and other sabertooth "cats" #sic as "tigers." It would be redundant to specifically state that Smilodon and tigers are unrelated, and then state again that (most) sabertooths and modern felids are unrelated/not closely related.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

But Smilodon is in fact a cat (broadly defined as a felid), which is not mentioned. It is not redundant since the rest of the paragraph isn't referring to Smilodon. On a second reading, I would say the whole paragraph (maybe even the whole lead) ought to be rewritten to be clearer and smoother. The natural reading would imply that Smilodon isn't a cat. Furthermore, there is no mention of Machairodontinae, which seems like it would be the natural clade to mention first when discussing the "cat" part of "sabre-tooth cat", and then to mention that lots of non-felid animals are also called "sabre-tooth cats". Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that it needs to be rewritten, yes, especially since there are felids, i.e., Smilodon and Maicharodus, among the sabertooth cats in addition to non-felids like Eusmilus and Machaeroides.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)