Talk:Canada lynx

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleCanada lynx is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 18, 2020.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 17, 2020Good article nomineeListed
July 20, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 24, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that populations of the Canada lynx (pictured) undergo cyclic rises and falls in line with those of the snowshoe hare?
Current status: Featured article

Name[edit]

Please revert back to "Canada Lynx," the correct name. "Canadian Lynx" is incorrect and makes the article look unprofessional.

I changed all occurences of "Canadian Lynx" to the correct "Canada Lynx." Can anyone please correct the article title and links, which still read "Canadian."

IUCN, most trained experts, and that paper encyclopedia call this cat the Canada lynx. Note that Canada is capitalized and lynx is not. Yea, "Canada" doesn't sound as elegant, but it is this lynx's name. Please conform this article to this standard. RastaKins 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed., is the foremost authority on species names, and they say Canadian Lynx. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History's Mammals Species of the World. It lists lynx canadensis' common name as Canada Lynx. Isn't this list derived from the book you cite? [1] RastaKins 20:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the website is still using the 2nd edition's information, from 1993. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what Beyazid said is true. there is no "official" standard as there is with WP:BIRD (as there is no WP:Mammal). it is simply by convention that mammal articles follow it. besides, c'mon -- it takes mere seconds to revert such relatively simple "large scale" changes as capitalization. this was a good-faith edit based on sound reasoning that just happens to conflict with the unwritten standard for a Mammal page. new editors should be bold! right? shouldn't this 'rule' be put into print somewhere? it's just an edit-war waiting to happen, imo. - Metanoid (talk, email) 19:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no argument with Beyazid's inital action, wrong as it was. And I reverted with an appropriate edit summary. Beyazid's continued reverts, however, after learning there is conflict on this matter are a different story. There has been shown to be no consensus to make all cat or any other subsection of the mammal articles to conform either way, and so no changes should be made in this regard until the community has come to a decision. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And why was my initial action "wrong"? You claim that "no changes should be made" without community decision. Two points: Already have community decision, it's called WP:MOS. Secondly, do as you say but not as you do, huh? Super. Beyazid (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone new to this dispute, it is spread over a large number of articles affected by the same problem. A newer discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals#Capitalization re-visited, where I recommend all further discussion is made. Thanks! BigBlueFish (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Lynx is wrong. It should be Canada Lynx. Bush league. Muckapedia 08:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Negative. See MSW3. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, assuming I’m not a zoologist, why is bucknell a more authoritative source than the Smithsonian? This ongoing thread proves at least that the alternate name is widespread enough to merit inclusion. (ie: it is not an error, it is a different name, like wolverine v. carcajou or elk v. wapati).— Muckapedia07:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Globalise[edit]

I don’t understand the relevance of the link you have supplied. It seemed to focus on Capitalisation and nominating the MSW3 as an authority on Animal names. I am not debating the validity of Canadian Lynx as a label — I am sure that in the American dialect of English Canadian Lynx is valid, perhaps even the most common name. But, because 1) the animal is eponymously associated with Canada, and 2) more widespread in Canada than it is in the United States, the article should seek to reflect the local English (ie: Canadian English) usage (vis MOS:TIES and Wikipedia:English) which is unquestionably Canada Lynx, as evidenced by Government of Canada, Canadian Geographic, The CBC, and the Toronto Zoo. — Muckapedia07:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The MSW3 site explicitly states “this currently existing online list was compiled under the auspices of the American Society of Mammalogists”. The American Society of Mammologists sets out in its style guide the provision that American English be used exclusively. This directly contravenes Wikipedia style, and with specific regard to this dispute, compromises the applicability of the source. For a reference reflecting local usage, see the equivalent Canadian organisation, the Canadian Zoological Society, where on page 48 of this document the attested “Canada Lynx” may be found. — Muckapedia 18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible references to enhance this article[edit]

I'll see what else I can come up with.--MONGO 15:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual aid (graph) for the population variation[edit]

I can't make it myself, but after reading the explanation of the fluctuating population, I think a graph would be useful, since the fluctuation seems to follow an interesting pattern. Anchoress 00:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered in the United States?[edit]

I believe they are considered an endangered species in the US. Some states have re-introduced them, I think, Colorado? There was a big stink where people tried to ban foothold traps in some NE states because they feared that lynx migrating down from Canada might be killed in foothold traps (an erroneous belief as footholds don't injure the cat's foot, and a trapper can just simply release a lynx.) Well, the point being, they might be of "least concern" in Canada, but not in the U.S. Tsarevna (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Least Concern status is "global" for the entire species, set by the IUCN. The US FWS lists them as "Threatened" in the US. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of 3/14/2003, the Associated Press reported that four wildlife public interest groups sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for having delayed implementing a recovery plan for the Canada Lynx for 13 years since its designation as endangered in the contiguous United States. That same report stated that only a few hundred of these animals remain in the continguous United States, which directly contradicts certain of the statements currently appearing in this article with regard to the population levels for the Canada Lynx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.109.84.5 (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which "certain of the statements currently appearing in this article" are you referring to? I don't see a contradiction: this article does not include population numbers, but data from a reliable source could be a useful addition. Do you have a link to the report that was referenced in the AP news article? 108.127.160.149 (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle of abundance section needs fleshing out[edit]

Leaving this note here for comments as well as to remind myself to come back and take a whack at it. The paper cited in the cycle of abundance section actually says that the Hudson Bay Company records may not accurately reflect shifts in population but a more complex interrelation between trappers, predators, and prey: ie. in years when the spp. trappers caught to feed themselves were less abundant the trappers were unable to spend as much time setting lynx traps and hence caught fewer lynx. AP (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add: the paper is from '76 and I've read similar reports of their predator-prey cycle with hare elsewhere so there are likely better sources to be had, which is why I'm leaving it until I have more time to investigate. AP (talk)

Vandal revert[edit]

Deep breath ... not a vandal, my edit from feb 5 was good faith. Was just about to add the citation when you reverted. Check my edit history. I deserve a barnstar for not including profanity in this post. — Muckapedia (talk) 5e fév. 2014 22h35 (−4h)

No vandalism was mentioned. I checked on the term and it does not merit being in the lede. It is an archaic or local term and probably should be applied to bobcats not lynxes. I suggest if you want to include it to add it to another part of the article as an anecdote. Not all names for an animal need to be included especially if they are very local names. Dger (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or have not been used as a common name for decades.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Link: Reference 14[edit]

The link for reference 14 is a dead link. It should be: http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/assets/docs/yir2003.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hifear267 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spotting this. I think I have fixed it with this edit. You are welcome to make such fixes yourself on unprotected articles like this one. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Canada lynx. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canada lynx. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

septic bite?[edit]

two sources:

https://reptilis.net/2009/05/18/new-paper-dispells-komodo-myth-also-megalania-may-have-been-the-worlds-largest-venomous-animal/ 

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/reports-publications/canada-communicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2019-45/issue-7-8-july-4-2019/ccdrv45i78-eng.pdf.

50.111.40.207 (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Canada lynx/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 02:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • I did not find relevant similarities to other cats in my sources (there was a mention of the cougar being a similar cat, but it is much larger with a longer tail so not really worth including), but this point about the caracal is mentioned in a few. I would expect it to be so, such ear tufts are not common in cats, and personally I feel it is an interesting similarity to note. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here 'day' means a 24-hour period.. just saying 'night' may be inaccurate as that would rule out movement in daytime. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "except for the mother-offspring bond" you should clarify only for females   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the Ecology section, "These lynxes are primarily solitary" onwards should be moved to the Home ranges section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally mention details of the social structure in the first para or two of the Ecology section. I feel it is more noticeable that way, I won't expect a reader to look for it under Home ranges. And there is not much to say about the social structure for this cat, so maybe a line or two at the start would be appropriate. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "face more difficulty in genetic exchange and hence show lower heterozygosity" does this mean they have a harder time breeding and show less genetic diversity or something?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My big problem is with the word "heterozygosity". To "show lower heterozygosity" means to be more homozygous, which just means to show less genetic variability, which is a much easier phrase to digest than heterozygosity   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. One describes what all the cat eats and its competition with coyotes, and the other focuses on how the hare affects the demographic trend of the lynx. But yeah, I think the Relationship section looks better if it comes after Diet. From Diet the reader learns about the lynx's preferences, and the next section would explore how the hare is pivotal in determining the fate of lynx populations. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dens have been observed under fallen trees and tree roots, from wherein the area outside could be easily surveyed" doesn't seem like particularly important information   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but I felt wording it this way makes it more explicit. Like it is not hunting for meat or pleasure. Do tell me if 'fur trade' appears repetitive anywhere, will reword it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think what's really throwing me off is how you described it. You said "To avoid severe population declines during the periodic fall in lynx populations, Alaska and most Canadian provinces regulate the time periods and fur quantity for trapping" instead of "Hunting season and quotas are set based on population data" which is done with every game animal in the US and Canada   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree but it's actually a paraphrase of what is on the IUCN page. I can't find a good reword for this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should link to Kettle River (Columbia River tributary), not the mountain range, and the name of the area is locally called the "wedge" because it's wedged in between the rivers to the south and the Canadian border to the north.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The large paws, broadened by the wide-spaced metatarsals" this just means their toes are far apart. You wouldn't lose anything by keeping it as "large, broad paws"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought so when I added that detail. No problem, removed. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea. It was the way it is when I began work on the article, and I left it untouched. I have turned it into a normal citation. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this and the copyedit. I have addressed all the points and replied to some. Happy to work on any more suggestions :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else, Dunkleosteus77? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I already passed this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mislabeled picture[edit]

The picture under the Threats and Conservation section says "Canadian lynx" (within the picture), when it should be "Canada Lynx". I don't know or care about its nationality. This is a lot like labeling "Canada goose" as "Canadian Geese." Only songwriters get to do that (See, e.g., George Harrison here, and I still object to it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice that. Should we remove the pic? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just find it mildly annoying. I gather there is no way to fix the picture? I changed the caption. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a look at commons: how about replacing it with this unlabeled one : File:The_captive_lynx,_Photo_C_(HS85-10-38342).jpg ? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we caption it as killing for fur? Looks like a very old pic. Maybe it was just game? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 21:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does not fully match the 'killing for fur' part of this section. But it does fit with the general subject of this section, namely: threats. And hunting is still a continuing threat, I understand. Whether for fur or trophy makes no difference for the species. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a preference. The 1921 pic is interesting. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Range in the U.S.?[edit]

Hi,

I have a question about this article. The opening sentence says, “The Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) is a medium-sized North American lynx that ranges across Alaska, Canada, and much of the contiguous United States.”

However, the graphic showing the range of the Canada lynx shows it to be resident only in the most northerly parts of the contiguous U.S. with some possible additional areas in the Rocky Mountains area. I made no changes to the article since I do not know which is correct, but I do not see how both can be. Hank Gillette (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The "much of the contiguous United States" is wrong and needs removing. The IUCN says In the contiguous United States, lynx historically occurred in 24 states (McKelvey et al. 2000), possibly ranging as far down the Rocky mountain chain to include a 25th, New Mexico (Frey 2006). However, there is some uncertainty about whether an occurrence or even many occurrences means the area is part of their historic range (McKelvey et al. 2000). In 2000, the US Fish and Wildlife Service listed lynx as Threatened in 14 States: Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. So we're only talking about border states and a few others in the Rockies/Northwest and the IUCN map suggests the USFWS is being optimistic. As its clearly wrong now, I've changed the article to "northern parts of the contiguous United States" for now until someone comes up with something better. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It used to say ... it ranges across Canada and into Alaska as well as some parts of the northern United States and extending down the Rocky Mountains to Colorado, where they were reintroduced in the 1990s. Perhaps this should be restored or is it too much US-centric for the lede? —  Jts1882 | talk  14:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20th century[edit]

Canada lynx#Taxonomy: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries", but "1897" and "1900"; the 20th century started in 1 January 1901. --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 10:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive text[edit]

Canada lynx#Distribution and habitat: "A reintroduction attempt of 80 lynx [...] still fully protected under state law."

Canada lynx#Threats and conservation: "Between 1989 and 1992 [...] unknown causes or predation." --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 19:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff: 1031813505. --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 21:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

why is this under category "Ecological experiment" ? Gimly24 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_lynx&oldid=1206527077"