Felis canadensis Kerr 1792
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Lynx canadensis Kerr, 1792 Canadian Lynx F [elis]. Lynx canadensis Kerr, 1792:157. Type locality “ Canada;” restricted to “Eastern Canada [= Quebec]” by Miller (1912:119). Felis canadensis: É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803:120. Name combination. Lynx canadensis: Rafinesque, 1817:46. First use of current name combination. Felis borealis: Temminck, 1824:109. Name combination; part, not Felis borealis Thunberg, 1798. Lynx borealis canadensis: True, 1885:611. Name combination. Lynx subsolanus Bangs, 1897:49. Type locality “Codroy, Newfoundland.” Lynx canadensis mollipilosus Stone, 1900:48. Type locality “Wainwright Inlet, Pt. Barrow, Alaska.” [Lynx canadensis] subsolanus: Elliot, 1901:296. Name combination. Felis (Lynx) lynx canadensis: Kurtén and Rausch, 1959:44. Name combination. CONTEXT AND CONTENT. Order Carnivora, suborder Feliformia, family Felidae, subfamily Felinae, genus Lynx. Lynx currently contains four recognized species (canadensis, lynx, pardinus, and rufus —Sunquist and Sunquist 2009; Kitchner 2017); a generic synonymy and key to the species of Lynx is provided in Larivière and Walton (1997). Three subspecies were recognized by Wozencraft (2005); however, Sunquist and Sunquist (2009) and Banfield (1974) recognized only two (canadensis and subsolanus). More recently, L. canadensis has been presented as monotypic by Kitchner et al. (2017) who interpreted the level of morphologic and genetic differences between the taxa as insufficient to support subspecific status for subsolanus and mollipilosus. The following three subspecies are those presented by Wozencraft (2005): L. c. canadensis Kerr, 1792:157. See above. L. c. mollipilosus Stone, 1900:48. See above. L. c. subsolanus Bangs, 1897:49. See above. NOMENCLATURAL NOTES. Since Kerr’s 1792 description of Lynx canadensis its taxonomic placement has been questioned. During the 1970s through the 1990s, some researchers (Van Gelder 1977; Corbet 1978; Hemmer 1978; McKenna and Bell 1997; Groves 1982; McCord and Cardoza 1982; Tumlison 1987) thought that either data were insufficient or that differences between species were not great enough to warrant a separate genus and thus retained Lynx as a subspecies within Felis. Others (Matyushkin 1979; Hall 1981; Werdelin 1981; Garcia-Perea 1992; Wozencraft 1993) supported Lynx as a distinct genus. L. canadensis has been considered as conspecific with L. lynx (Kurtén and Rausch 1959; Weigel 1961; McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and Parker 1987; Tumlison 1987) and as a distinct species (Matyushkin 1979; Kurtén and Anderson 1980; Werdelin 1981; Garcia Perea 1992; Wozencraft 1993). More recently Wozencraft (2005), in his revision of Carnivora, placed canadensis under Lynx along with L. lynx, L. pardinus, and L. rufus and Kitchner et al. (2017) in a revision of the Felidae presented L. canadensis as a monotypic species. Analyses using 16S rRNA and NADH-5 indicated that L. canadensis and L. lynx are sister taxa with an older ancestor common to L. rufus (Johnson and O’Brien 1997; Pecon-Slattery et al. 2004; Johnson et al. 2006). However, another analysis using a Y chromosome marker recovered a sister relationship between L. rufus and L. lynx to the exclusion of L. canadensis (Pecon-Slattery and O’Brien 1998). Lynx canadensis previously was described under Felis lynx (Tumlison 1987). Other vernacular names include Canada lynx, lynx du Canada (French), loup-cervier (French), pishu (Cree), lucivee, lynx, wildcat, link (Yukon Territory and InteriorAlaska), and lynx cat. DIAGNOSIS Lynx canadensis (Fig. 1) is the tallest lynx in North America and can be differentiated from the sympatric bobcat L. rufus by its larger size (head–body length 76.2–106.7 cm versus 65–105 cm in L. rufus —Sunquist and Sunquist 2009), its large, widely spreadable and furry feet (feet are smaller, <30 cm 2, and pads are naked in L. rufus), longer legs (height at shoulder> 46 cm versus <45 cm for L. rufus), longer ear tufts (> 2.5 cm versus <2.5 cm in L. rufus), shorter tail (<0.5 length of hind foot versus> 0.5 length of hind foot in L. rufus) and more imprecise spotting on the belly fur (Parker et al. 1983; Larivière and Walton 1997; Rezendes 1999). On average, L. canadensis is heavier (mean body weight, males: 10 kg; females: 8.5 kg) than L. rufus (mean body weight, males: 9.6 kg; females: 6.8 kg—Anderson and Lovallo 2003) although the opposite has been noted in some areas (Parker et al. 1983; Buskirk et al. 2000). The tip of the tail of L. canadensis is black all around and that of L. rufus is black on the dorsal surface only (Larivière and Walton 1997). Pelage of L. canadensis typically is more grayish (Werdelin 1981; Sunquist and Sunquist 2002; Anderson and Lovallo 2003; Hansen 2007). Because of geographic variation across populations and even within a single region, distinguishing the skull of L. canadensis from that of L. rufus and other felids often requires a combination of generalizations (characters that do not always hold across the entire geographic range) and specific measurements. The skull of L. canadensis (Fig. 2) differs from that of L. rufus by its typically larger size, relatively smaller auditory bullae, wider interorbital breadth (> 30 mm), larger presphenoid (> 6 mm at its widest portion), typically smaller and more anterior position of the postorbital processes of the frontal bones, longer upper carnassial (> 16 mm), and by the separation of the anterior condyloid foramen from the foramen lacerum (Jackson 1961; Hoffmeister 1989; Elbroch 2006). The skull of L. canadensis can typically be differentiated from other felids by the narrower nasal branch of the premaxilla, the thinner, less depressed, and sharper postorbital processes, less deeply notched suborbital margins of the palate, and closeness to the canine and more forward placement of the first large upper premolar (Pocock 1917a). GENERAL CHARACTERS Lynx canadensis is a medium-sized (6–14 kg) felid that possesses a round head, short nose, long, pointed ears, long limbs, large feet, and short tail (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). Pelage is gray to silver-gray, with a blueish tinge in young animals. Summer pelage is darker (Saunders 1964). Some L. canadensis have the blue or dilute mutation characterized by bluish-gray replacing black in the pelage (Jones 1923; Schwarz 1938; Denis 1964). White fur occurs on eyelids, inside of ears, chin, throat, and dorsum. The outside fur of the ears is brown with a white central spot and the facial ruff is well developed (Hall 1981). Pads become fully furred in winter (Denis 1964). Males are larger than females. Mean (except where noted) body mass (kg; n, range or SD) of L. canadensis males and females, respectively, was: 12.53 (7, 9.98–13.15), 10.14 (14, 8.16–11.11) in Alaska (Berrie 1971; Stephenson et al. 1991); 10.55 (5, 9.08–11.80), 8.70 (3, 7.50–9.50) in Alberta (van Zyll de Jong 1975); 15 (single male), 12.3 (2, 10.9, 13.6) in Manitoba (Carbyn and Patriquin 1983); 10.9 (7, 9.1–12.2), 9.9 (16, 5.4– 12.7) in Michigan (Erickson 1955; Beyer et al. 2001); 10.6 (18, 6.0–13.2), 9.1 (26, 5.9–15.0) in Minnesota (Mech 1977, 1980; Moen et al. 2010); mean not given (83, 4.1–9.0), mean not given (71, 2.2–8.2) in Nova Scotia (Parker et al. 1983); 9.05 (31, ± 1.19), 7.08 (15, ± 1.36) in the Northwest Territories (Murray and Boutin 1991; Poole et al. 1998); 12.3 (1), 8.6 (1) in Wisconsin (Schorger 1947; Doll et al. 1957); 10.7 (93, 6.4–17.3), 8.6 (91, 5.0–11.8) in Nova Scotia (Saunders 1964); and 11.3 (27, range not given), 10.0 (19, range not given) in Yukon (Slough and Mowat 1996; O’Donoghue et al. 1997). Additional body masses (kg) of individual L. canadensis were: 15.9 (adult, male) in British Columbia (Poszig et al. 2004); 12.3 (adult, male) in Iowa (Rasmussen 1969); 12.7 (adult, male) in Maine (Fuller 2004); 8.2 (kitten) in November in Manitoba (Carbyn and Patriquin 1983); 10.0 (adult, male), 7.0 (adult, female), 4.0 (juvenile, female) in Montana (Koehler et al. 1979); 15.0 (adult, male), 9.9 (kitten, male), 4.5 (kitten, female) in Wyoming (Blanchard 1959); 7.80 (yearling, female), 3.75 (kitten, male) in January, 3.75 (kitten, female) in January, 5.50 (kitten, female) in April, 6.80 in Yukon (O’Donoghue et al. 1995; Mowat and Slough 1998). Mean measurements (mm, n, range or SD) of males and females, respectively, were: total length 1,030 (4, 995–1,050), 980 (7, 950–1,010); length of tail 140 (4, 100–150), 110 (8, 100– 140); length of hind foot 250 (4, 230–260), 230 (8, 220–240) in Alaska (Berrie 1971); total length 920 (12, 850–1,050), 860 (11, 780–950); length of tail 110 (12, 100–120), 100 (11, 80–110); length of hind foot 230 (12, 220–250), 220 (11, 210–240) in Alberta (van Zyll de Jong 1975); total length 892.6 (96, 736.6– 1,066.8), 844.0 (89, 762.0–965.2); length of tail 104.6 (96, 50.8–127.0), 97.0 (95, 76.2–121.9); length of hind foot 234.2 (95, 203.2–260.4), 223.0 (89, 190.5–247.7) in Newfoundland (Saunders 1964); height at chest 467 (30, ± 10.4), 422 (15, ± 6.3) in the Northwest Territories (Murray and Boutin 1991); total length 852.8 (120, ± 3.21), 812.7 (118, ± 3.00) in Ontario (Quinn and Gardner 1984). Hall (1981) presented the following ranges of measurements (mm, mixed sexes, sample size not specified): total length (825–954), length of tail (95–125), length of hind foot (203–250). Parker et al. (1983) reported the following ranges of measurements (mm) for 83 males and 71 females, respectively, from Nova Scotia: total length 770–950, 740–910; length of hind foot 132–158, 122–148; height at shoulder 430–530, 410–520. Additional measurements (mm) of individual L. canadensis were: total length 965.0 (adult, male), length of tail 152 (adult, male), length of hind foot 140 (adult, male) in Iowa (Rasmussen 1969); total length 1,219.2 (adult, male) in Michigan (Erickson 1955); total length 840.0 (adult, female), length of hind foot 220.0 (adult, female), length of ear 65.0 (adult, female), neck circumference 205.0 (adult, female) in Minnesota (M
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,047 | 0,020 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».