Talk:History of lions in Europe

Extinction Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Cats Low‑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
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.

Europe Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge proposal of Lions in Europe with European lion

I agree to fusion this article with "Lions in Europe", because of the fact that the european population of lions isn't widely accept as a separate subspecies."

I agree, but lions could also be a page that discusses the presence of the Asiatic lion and the European cave lion in Europe. Maybe even the lions in the Roman arenas. Peter Maas 10:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European lions are also discussed in Asiatic lion#Asiatic Lions in Europe

Well, I'm actually against it now. I've now edited the two articles. One is now about the (invalid) European lion subspecies. The other is on lions in Europe in general. It discusses the different subspecies, use in Roman arenas, and lions in European zoos. I will expand that article later. So I will remove the merge proposal. (Also because the one who proposed this proposal is not registered and did not sign his comment.) Peter Maas 21:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article Lions in Europe should be integrated in the other lion-articles. You could write to each animal in each country an article. For example Mice in Germany, Mice in Africa, Beavers in Kanada, Cervus elphus elaphus in Bavaria..... That is not very clearly laid out and not very "user-friendly". User:Altaileopard 15:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object the move of texts from Lions in Europe to other lemmas (not European lion), but I feel that European lion must stay here, meaning a lemma on the (possibly invalid) subspecies. Peter Maas 16:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Lions in Europe

The following was copied from Lions in Europe: Athor was User:Pmaas

In historic times lions occurred in southeastern Europe. This Balkanic population is generally considered part of the Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) group, but others consider it a separate subspecies, the European lion (Panthera leo europaea).

Aristotle and Herodotus wrote that lions were found in the Balkans in the middle of the first millennium B.C. When Xerxes advanced through Macedon in 480 B.C., several of his baggage camels were killed by lions. Lions are believed to have died out within the borders of present-day Greece in A.D. 80-100.

This sentence was copied from lions in Europe: (Author: User:Tarpan)

Due to geographical distribution they were more accessible to Romans than North African and Middle Eastern lions.

Copied and modified by User:Altaileopard 11:15, 05 Okt 2006 (UTC)

deletion of this article

I think this article is completely unverified and this subspecies seems to be not confirmed through serious literature. I would like to remove the contents and change it into a Redirect to Asiatic lion. Who does not agree?--Altaileopard 16:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only agree if its content will be posted in the Asian lion article. Not a complete deletion, because there have been lions in Europe. The thing is most (not everyone) consider it to be the Asiatic lion, not a different European subspecies. But I haven't seen any (genetic) research on this to be sure. This lemma could be concerved as it describes a possible invalid subspecies. I see no problem with that either. Peter Maas\^talk 09:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did some further reading in the forum of my website (The Extinction Forum), and there is some doubt. One members said that "In recent times, lions only occurs in Europe in Greece and SE Balkans; this animals were asian lions (Panthera leo persica) that colonized the area before the Sea of Marmara formed (5600 bC)." After which another said the following: "Despite of that, how much time do you think is needed for a subspecies being born? Do you know that the balkan lynx and the carpathian lynx have no more that 200 years of being isolated from each other with no possibility of genetic exchange and nowadays the balkan population is considered a separate subspecies. And that there are fools that claim to have "created" a new subspecies of european bison in 20 years (which are in fact only hybrids american x european bison) and they even call him bison bonasus montanus... Let's make it clear that I don't agree with the latter, I only took it as an example. We can't just throw away 5000 years." and "I can't say that the european lion was 100% a separate subspecies (until we have fossil confirmation). But I have good reasons to belive that. Many ancient greek authors describe it as bigger and "wilder" than the other two (that means that it was even bigger than the barbary, which is the larger known). Just to mention Herodotes (500 bc), who says that the camels of Xerxes army were attaced by lions while passing through Macedonia. It takes a lot of courage for a lion to attack camels surrounded with soldiers... Also the big size of the eurolion can be confirmed when you take a look at his main prey at the time. There weren't antelopes or gazelles in the Balkans, but there were deer, bison and of course... aurochs... You needed to be big to put down these colosses. Panthera leo europaea... let's wait for the bones". You find all posts on this animal at: The Extinction Forum - European Lion (you need to register to read, which is totally free). I'm starting to think we can presercve the Wikipedia lemma. Peter Maas\^talk 10:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deserves an article regardless of species debate

Sometimes I get the impression that species lovers are really talking about different breeds, races, etc. But it doesn't MATTER. This is a cool topic. Lions running around in Europe. I hope they get reintroduced into the wild. Maybe we should start releasing some in Greece and Italy?

No, thanks :) Ultima Thulean (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical survival of lions in France and Italy

For the survival of lions into historical times in Northern Greece/the Balkans, there is literary evidence in the form of a passage by Herodotus regarding an attack on the Persian army by lions and a statement by both him and Aristotle that in their times lions still occurred between the Achelous and the Nessus.[1] Polybius does not seem to be aware of any lions living in Europe in his time (around 150 BC). Dio Chrysostomus, writing around AD 80, considers them extinct. Hence, presumably, the date of AD 80 mentioned in the text of the article. Regarding the statement that the lion inhabited France and Italy in historical times, on the other hand, there appears to be a complete lack of evidence. The source, which a.f.a.i.c.t. comes from a forum of an ecological agency, does not list any literature in support of its statement. No Greek or Roman texts mention the actual presence of lions in either of these regions, and they do not feature in Italian mythology ([2] - an old source, admittedly, but the body of literature has not changed substantially in the meantime). The contention that lions lived on in Western Europe and became extinct there only around AD 1 is therefore surprising and needs more corroboration. Iblardi (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authority and date

Someone know the authorities and dates of descriptions of the names europaea and tartarica? MSW and a review of Haas et al. in 2005 [Mammalian Species] don't cite these names. Burmeister (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was also unable to find any authorities for these names in Google Books, Google Scholar, or Web of Knowledge. Possibly someone made them up for Wikipedia.

What I did find was a discussion of the identity of the lions that historically lived in southeastern Europe; this author concludes that it is unlikely they are a distinct form of lion. Similarly, the IUCN states Panthera leo persica formerly occurred west to Greece. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.2010.00181.x does not mention a separate European subspecies. Ellerman and Morrison-Scott do not list the names europaea and tartarica in their nomenclatural review of Eurasian mammals.

There almost certainly is no such thing as "Panthera leo europaea". This article should either be merged into Asiatic lion, or it should be rewritten to give an overview of the historical records of Asiatic lions in Europe. Ucucha (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "history of lions in Europe" or something? See for example: Rhinoceroses in ancient China FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Distribution with Extinction

The "Distribution" section in discussing only Greece and Transcaucasus, giving the impression that this was the historic range. But in the "Extinction" section we learn that lions were present in other areas. Plus this section doesn't address extinction as such.

Thumbs up on merging these two sections? Kortoso (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? Kortoso (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic expressions

"Middle" of ......" Just how useful in an encyclopedic environment is such an indistinct expression "in the middle of", and its many colloquialisms to be acceptable? It is one thing to express something in an encyclopedic article that is indistinct but to use words that are indistinct to describe time are probably every growing largely dinosaurs of expression since both science and scholarship are increasingly taking swathes of time and breaking it down into more easily specified periods of time, instead of relying on an idea or incident being thought as un-documentable or not so easily lifted from fable to potentially more real than faux.

The case in point is that if the "source": is "480" then that certainly is not in the middle of a millennium, it is not within a 1/3rd middle part of a millennium and can with very little fact be claimed to be a logical expression of a millennium, particularly in an encyclopedic environment should not be encouraged as a means of expression when there is lead way to conceptualize and describe a time.

We are not asking for scientific papers--only that what is reported is neutral fact, without prejudice and innuendo.

The colloquialism "in the middle" is used many times for sloppy expression that is very difficult to identify with a time period that with a reasonable lead way be considered in the middle of a time span.

More can be said about the indistinctiveness of space or geographic location(s) but that is for another TP since this example is being applied to time span.66.74.176.59 (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "middle" in this article comes directly from the cited source. Arguing that the middle of a millennium is only the year 500 (or 501?) I find somewhat nitpicking. --Cyfal (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious a new user

User 50.153.155.59 has been persistently adding the following text without attribution:

There were modern lions in Germany because of the plenty of deer there was to hunt for food. In the winter times, they had always survived the cold because of their warm fur...

Any suggestions on how to deal? Kortoso (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why I removed this image

This image is a recent painting of the Upper Pleistocene Eurasian cave lion, which had a vast range that included Europe, rather than being limited there. The image of the cave-painting of Eurasian cave lions in France would be more relevant to this article, since France is in Europe. Leo1pard (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Bölsche, W., Harder, H. (1900). Tiere der Urwelt. Serie III. Wandsbek-Hamburg: Verlag der Kakao-Compagnie Theodor Reichardt.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Request for comment

Please see/contribute to discussion at Talk:Lion#Request_for_comment:_How_many_subpages? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Leo of Michalitsi. Ancient Verenice. Ioannina Museum, Greece 01.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Bölsche, W., Harder, H. (1900). Tiere der Urwelt. Serie III. Wandsbek-Hamburg: Verlag der Kakao-Compagnie Theodor Reichardt.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]