489
Black panthers are not an actual species - they are jaguars and leopards with melanism, the opposite of albinism
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
489 points (98.4% liked)
Mildly Interesting
17384 readers
50 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here's the thing. You said a "lion is a panther"
Is it in the same genus? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies lions, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls lions panthers. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "panther" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Panthera, which includes things from tigers to leopards to jaguars.
So your reasoning for calling a lion a panther is because random people "call the roaring ones panthers?" Let's get snow leopards in there, then, too.
Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A panther is a panther and a member of the panthera genus. But that's not what you said. You said a lion is a panther, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the panthera genus panthers, which means you'd call tigers and jaguars, and other cats panthers, too. Which you said you don't.
It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
I am glad I can recognize a never seen before copypasta. This makes me proud.
So, before I start: I would not have said anything if you hadn't gone all "uhm actually" in a condescending tone towards someone who's just doing a silly little twist on the taxonomy thing on some inconsequential thread on the internet.
Might I point your professional attention as "scientist who studies lions" to the fact that the thread is about how "Panther" is not a real species but one of two other species with a different level of melanines in their fur? Good.
Now, would you care - in your scientific scientist way - to shift your attention to this thing you said:
My layman brain does the big confoosy-boosy! Isn't the point of the whole "useless party knowledge" type post here that panthers are, in fact, not panthers because "panthers" are not a species at all?
They said that because - and this is true - "panthera" and "panther" are the same word. "Panther" is ancient Greek while "Panthera" is Latin and -depending on how your language adopted the terms- the plural of "panther". So an animal that belongs to the "Panthera" genus does belong to the "panther" genus, depending on the host language used. Since we already clarified that "panthers" are not a species at all, the only "panthers" are the members of the panthera genus. So yes, a lion is a panther. So is - to further ridicule your "sciency scientist"-attitude Panthera uncia. So yes, we have thrown the snow leopard in there, too.
Wooosh.
It's a copypasta from old Unidan reddit days
Doesn't matter, it was fun to rip it apart.