Talk:Chinese mountain cat

Cats Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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.

Chinese Desert Cats: In action.

Sure, you hear about them, but have you ever really seen a picture of them in action! With teeth and everything! Chinese Desert Cats are very interesting and they inhabit a small area of mountainous western China. They live up to an altitude of 10,000 feet! They have long canine teeth, and with colors varies of broken stripes of dark spots running vertically down the flanks of it's body and with similar beautiful markings on the cheeks. The tail is ringed and tipped with black. The paw pads are well-tufted and there are also short tuffs of hair on the tips of the ears.

Thank you "The Encyclopedia Of The Cat" by Micheal Pollard Copyright Parragon 1999 2003 Barnes&Noble Books for some info!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.254.103 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 September 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your exclamation-point-laden summary of an entry from another tertiary source helps us improve the article. Was there a particular fact you wanted added? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small cat --> 80cm long?!?

I can't find an answer elsewhere to this but the article suggests it is a small cat and then goes on to say that its 80cm long +35cm of tail. I'm sure it must be 80cm including the tail, else its actually quite a considerable sized cat, considering most domestic felines are around 40cm long + tail WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 01:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small in the Family Felidae (when compared to tigers, in other words). Speciate 03:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. A domestic cat is a very small cat. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True species or subspecies?

This Science article only looked at 5 individuals from this taxa. Depending on the method of analysis used, they are either a sister subspecies of Felis silvestris ornata or a sister species of Felis silvestris. They are quite divergent, possibly as long as 230,000 ypb. At this time I think having a redirect from Felis silvestris bieti is enough. Speciate 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be in the article then. At present it simply says they were reclassified as a subspecies seven years ago, and that is enough to change the article text and infobox to refer to them as F. s. bieti. You appear to be making the case that this classification is controversial; if this is so, we need sources showing this, and then the controversy should be documented here. A discussion about whether, for WP purposes, this is F. s. bieti or F. bieti is in order. A personal interpretation that the Science article is or isn't conclusive of something would appear to be original research. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]