Ontologia
Chat sauvage

Chat sauvage

Lynx rufus(Schreber, 1777)

LCLR Monde (IUCN)
  1. Animal
  2. Chordata
  3. Mammalia
  4. Carnivora
  5. Felidae
5 photos · Licences CC (Wikimedia Commons / iNaturalist)Click pour agrandir

Description

félin du genre Lynx qui vit en Amérique du Nord

Source : Wikidata

Pays · région · aire protégée · écorégion · biome
Chargement du graphe…

Indicateurs du réseau écologique

Comment lire ce graphe

Ce graphe représente les interactions écologiques documentées entre Lynx rufus et d'autres espèces, à partir de la base GloBI (Global Biotic Interactions, agrégation mondiale de la littérature scientifique) — source principale, complétée par d'autres jeux de données d'interactions agrégés par Ontologia. Il faut le comprendre comme une carte du savoir documenté, pas une carte de la réalité écologique exhaustive.

Limites principales

  • Incomplet. La majorité des interactions écologiques en milieu naturel n'ont jamais été publiées. Une espèce sans liens visibles n'est pas isolée — elle est probablement mal étudiée.
  • Biais publication pharmaco-agronomique. La littérature des interactions est polarisée par les enjeux économiques et sanitaires : parasitism / pathogen sur-pondéré sur les mammifères (recherche zoonoses, vecteurs), herbivory sur-pondéré sur les insectes phytophages (entomologie agronomique). À l'inverse, mutualisms, commensalisms et interactions sol/microbiote sont sous-cités. Conseil de lecture : sur les hubs mammifères ou les insectes ravageurs de culture, lire les arêtes parasitism / herbivory dominantes relativement au contexte de littérature, pas comme une mesure d'intensité écologique brute. Détails §10.1.
  • Biaisé vers les espèces étudiées. Quelques espèces (oiseaux communs, abeille mellifère, espèces modèles) concentrent disproportionnellement plus d'interactions documentées. Notre score composite ajoute un malus aux hubs de littérature pour atténuer cette dominance visuelle.
  • Interactions documentées globalement. Toutes les espèces affichées sont observées en France métropolitaine (les observations sont filtrées sur le territoire métropolitain), mais les interactions entre elles proviennent de la littérature scientifique mondiale. Une interaction documentée à l'étranger peut ne pas se réaliser à l'identique sur votre territoire. Le filtre « restreindre à ma commune » tient compte de la co-occurrence spatiale locale mais ne garantit pas l'interaction effective.
  • Sans dimension temporelle. Les variations saisonnières (migration, floraison, cycle de vie) ne sont pas modélisées.
  • Force d'interaction approximative. L'épaisseur des liens reflète le nombre de fois où l'interaction a été rapportée dans la littérature, pas son importance écologique réelle.

Comment nous sélectionnons les espèces affichées

Le graphe affiche au plus 31 nœuds par fiche (1 centre + 15 bulles depth=1 + 15 partenaires depth=2). Le serveur sélectionne intelligemment :

  • Bulles famille créées si une cascade taxonomique existe ou si ≥3 espèces directement documentées partagent une même famille — les espèces sont absorbées dans la bulle (pas de doublon visuel)
  • Espèces individuelles uniquement quand <3 dans une famille (sans cascade) — relations directes documentées
  • Pas d'espèces inférées affichées en doublon — les cascades sont représentées via les bulles famille uniquement
  • Partenaires depth=2 sélectionnés via algo priorité : candidat partagé par ≥2 docs de la famille (food web central) → reliant entre bulles → top sum_obs en dernier recours
  • Sous-types GloBI traduits en français au survol de la flèche (chasse, parasite, parasitoïde, mycorhize…)

Le toggle Profondeur 1 ↔ 2 client-side cache ou affiche les partenaires depth=2 sans refetch. Filtres règne, type d'interaction, ordres/familles, patrimoniales et commune recalculent côté serveur (slow path live ~1-2 s).

Indicateurs avancés (mode expert) : Modularité Q (Newman 2006, PNAS), communautés (Louvain, Blondel et al. 2008, J. Stat. Mech.), nestedness NODF (Almeida-Neto et al. 2008, Oikos).

Source : GloBI · TAXREF v18 (INPN/MNHN) · BDC-Statuts · Wikidata

299 partenaires écologiques documentés directement dans GloBI.

Partenaires
299
Espèces avec interactions documentées
Types d'interactions
8
Prédation, pollinisation, parasitisme…
Connectance
0.077
Densité des liens dans le sous-graphe affiché
Rang animalia
99 %
Percentile vs ensemble des animalia

Liste rouge IUCN

LC · Préoccupation mineureStable
Évaluation complète
Évaluation
2016 · v3.1
Altitude
03500 m
Profondeur
m
État de la populationExpert
In 2010, Roberts and Crimmins surveyed state wildlife management agencies in each of the 48 contiguous states regarding the current population status of Bobcats. Populations were reported to be stable or increasing in 40 states, with six states unable to report population trends and only one state (Florida) reporting decreases in Bobcat populations. The total Bobcat population for the US is estimated to be between 2,352,276 to 3,571,681 individuals, indicating that Bobcat populations have increased throughout the majority of their range in North America since the late 1990s. In particular, Bobcat populations have rebounded in the Midwestern states in recent decades. Bobcats now occur in all contiguous United States except Delaware. Five Canadian provinces reported stable Bobcat populations, one reported a stable or increasing population, and one reported a fluctuating population. Bobcat population sizes and status in Mexico are not well known.

Despite being widespread, there are only a few estimates for the densities that bobcats can attain. Density estimates include: 57-62 / 100km² in California (Alonso et al. 2015), 48/100 km² in Texas (Heilbrun et al. 2006), 25/100 km² in Arizona (Lawhead 1984), <9/100 km² in Idaho (Knick 1990), and 11/100 km² in Virginia (minimum estimate, M. Kelly and D. Morin pers. comm. 2015). Bobcat densities in the northern parts of their range are generally lower than in the south (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). A density estimate for Bobcats in Mexico was low, at five individuals per 100 km² (Arzate et al. 2007). Bobcat densities can vary dramatically depending on site and Thornton and Perkins (2015) found that densities in Texas were lowest in the most heavily modified landscape, and that Bobcat capture probability was positively related to forest cover.

Menaces identifiées(11 menaces classées CMP-IUCN)

  • 8_1_2
    Named species
    UnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 8_5_2
    Named species
    UnknownMinority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 1_2
    Commercial & industrial areas
    Minority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 2_1_3
    Agro-industry farming
    Ongoing
  • 2_3_3
    Agro-industry grazing, ranching or farming
    Ongoing
  • 4_1
    Roads & railroads
    Ongoing
  • 5_1_1
    Intentional use (species is the target)
    Minority (<50%)Ongoing
  • 5_1_2
    Unintentional effects (species is not the target)
    Ongoing
  • 5_1_3
    Persecution/control
    Ongoing
  • 5_3_5
    Motivation Unknown/Unrecorded
    Ongoing

+ 1 menaces supplémentaires

Description complète des menacesExpert
World demand for Bobcat fur rose gradually in the late 1960s and early 1970s and jumped in the mid-1970s after CITES entered into force, when the pelts of cats listed on Appendix I became legally unobtainable for the commercial fur trade (Nowell and Jackson 1996). Of particular and concern is the recent increase in Bobcat pelt prices from $85 in 2000, to record highs of $589 in 2013,  $447 in 2014, and $305 in 2015, driven by high demand for fur in China, Europe, and Russia (Knudson 2016). The number of Bobcat pelts exported from the U.S. has quadrupled in recent years, climbing to a high of 65,000 in 2013 when pelt prices were highest.

The US government has found that trade is not detrimental to Bobcat survival and is well-managed by state authorities. They have petitioned CITES numerous times, most recently in 2007, to remove the Bobcat from the CITES Appendices, arguing that the Bobcat does not meet the biological criteria for CITES listing and that their research indicates that importing governments should be able to reliably distinguish Bobcat skins from other species to prevent illegal trade (Govt of US 2007). However, the proposal was rejected by majority vote of the Parties to CITES (Nowell et al. 2007).

Habitat loss is viewed as another primary threat to bobcats in all three range countries. Increasing urbanization results in direct habitat loss when human density is high, although Bobcats have proven to be fairly adaptive to urbanization (Ordenana et al. 2010, Tracey et al. 2013 ) and low density developments (one house per two acres), particularly in areas with landscaped green spaces and golf courses, and Bobcats have been documented denning and raising litters in human structures (Riley et al. 2010). However, as Bobcats adjust to human developed landscapes, indirect effects increase. Vehicle collisions can be a primary source of mortality in urban Bobcat populations (Riley et al. 2006) and in populations with a high proportion of transients (Blankenship et al. 2006). In addition, exposure to common rodenticides in urban landscapes can result in direct mortality (anticoagulant toxicosis) and increased susceptibility to severe notoedric mange resulting in the death of Bobcats (Riley 1999, Riley et al. 2003, Riley et al. 2006,  Riley et al. 2007, Ruell et al. 2009, Serieys et al. 2013). Increases in urbanization and roads have also resulted in recent genetic isolation of Bobcats populations in several areas, indicating human developments are affecting historic dispersal patterns and gene flow, resulting in local and regional population structure (Riley et al. 2003, Croteau et al. 2012, Ruell et al. 2012, but see Millions and Swanson 2007).  

There is concern in the northeastern US about interspecific competition with expanding coyote populations (Moruzzi et al. 2002, Litvaitis and Harrison 1989, Litvaitis et al. 2006). However, in Florida, where Coyotes have also increased, Thornton et al. (2004) found that Bobcats and Coyotes favoured different prey species, with coyotes taking larger ungulates and Bobcats rodents and smaller mammals, and Coyotes and Bobcats coexist throughout most of the western portions of their ranges, likely through niche shifts in diet and activity (Fedriani et al. 2000). Bobcats coexist with Ocelots in Texas (Horne et al. 2009) and Canada Lynx in zones of sympatry (Peers et al. 2013) through habitat partitioning. Aside from exploitative competition, there is evidence of interference competition through intraspecific killing by Mountain Lions (Haas 2009) and hybridization has been detected with few federally threatened Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) in Maine, Minnesota, and New Brunswick (Homyack et al. 2008). In addition, increased or novel sources of depredation in have been documented in several areas.  Bobcat observations in southern Florida have decreased dramatically as invasive python densities have increased (Dorcas et al. 2012). In Ventura County, California, Coyotes were found to be the leading source of Bobcat kitten mortality (Moriarty 2007), although this increase in predation pressure is likely a result of reduced avoidance options in highly fragmented urban habitat (Riley et al. 2003). Interactions with domestic dogs may also present threats to the Bobcat population. Canine distemper and canine distemper-associated encephalitis has been documented in Bobcats in eastern Canada (Daoust et al. 2009) validating the proposed role of dogs as a pathogen-mediated apparent competitor with Bobcats (Vanek and Gompper 2009), and several studies demonstrate negative correlation between domestic dog activity and Bobcat activity (George and Crooks 2006, Reed and Merenlender 2011).  

In localized areas Bobcats take domestic livestock and are persecuted as pests (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). In addition, there have been recent concerns about the effects of harvest on local Bobcat populations in West Virginia (WV-DNR), and Michigan (Preuss and Gehring 2007) and poaching may result in higher harvest rates than anticipated in some areas (Millions and Swanson 2006), which can result in population declines as it has in New Hampshire (Litviatus et al. 2006). However, there is evidence from a survey of state game management agencies that Bobcat populations are stable or increasing, with densities greater than initially estimated, in all US states with the exception of Florida (Roberts and Crimmins 2010).

Habitats préférentiels (classification IUCN)

  • 1_1Forest - Boreal
  • 1_4Forest - Temperate
  • 1_5Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
  • 2Savanna
  • 3_4Shrubland - Temperate
  • 3_5Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
  • 3_7Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical High Altitude
  • 4_4Grassland - Temperate
  • 4_5Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
  • 8_2Desert - Temperate
  • 8_3Desert - Cold
Mesures de conservation recommandéesExpert
Included on CITES Appendix II. The Mexican subspecies Lynx rufus escuinapae was listed on CITES Appendix I until 1992, when it was downlisted to Appendix II on the grounds that it is not a valid taxon (Govt of US 2007). Bobcats are legally harvested for the fur trade in 38 US states, and in seven Canadian provinces. In Mexico, the Bobcat is legally hunted in small numbers as a trophy animal (Govt of US 2007). There appears to be little illegal international trade (Govt of US 2007), although within the US, Millions and Swanson (2006) used molecular forensics techniques to determine that skins reported as originating from an area with a higher bag limit were probably illegally taken from an area with a lower limit.

Bobcat status in the mid-western United States has improved since their extirpation in the early 1900s. In Iowa, Bobcats were downgraded to threatened in 2001 and are now harvested in many counties. In Illinois, Bobcats were removed from the states’ list of  threatened in 1999 and they are now found in nearly all counties. Indiana has sightings in much of the state and Bobcats were downgraded to special concern in 2005. In Ohio, the Bobcat is still classified as an endangered species and provided full protection.

Reintroduction of Bobcats to Cumberland Island, Georgia was highly successful (Diefebach et al. 2013) suggesting Bobcats can do well when protected. In addition, Kapfer and Potts (2012) found Bobcat harvest in Minnesota could be predicted by season length and suggest population densities can be manipulated by change in length of hunting season.
Actions de conservation (3)Expert
  • 2_1Site/area management
  • 3_1_1Harvest management
  • 3_1_2Trade management
Stress écologiques (18)Expert
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_1Ecosystem conversion
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 1_2Ecosystem degradation
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_1Species mortality
  • 2_2Species disturbance
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_2Competition
  • 2_3_8Other
Usage & commerce (2)Expert
  • 10Wearing apparel, accessories
    internationalnational
  • 15Sport hunting/specimen collecting
    internationalnational
Priorités de recherche (6)Expert
  • 1_1Taxonomy
  • 1_2Population size, distribution & trends
  • 1_3Life history & ecology
  • 1_4Harvest, use & livelihoods
  • 1_5Threats
  • 3_1Population trends
Niche IUCN globaleExpert

Royaumes biogéographiques

Nearctic

Systèmes (terrestre/eau douce/marin)

Terrestrial
Références bibliographiques (30)Expert
  1. IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-1. Available at: <a href="www.iucnredlist.org">www.iucnredlist.org</a>. (Accessed: 30 June 2016).
  2. Knudson, T. 2016. America’s trapping boom relies on cruel and grisley tools. Available at: <a href="https://www.revealnews.org/article/americas-trapping-boom-relies-on-cruel-and-grisly-tools/">https://www.revealnews.org/article/americas-trapping-boom-relies-on-cruel-and-grisly-tools/</a>.
  3. Hunter, L. 2015. <i>Wild Cats of the World. Bloomsbury Publishing</i>. New York.
  4. Alonso, R.S., McClintock, B.T., Lyren, L.M., Boydson, E.E. and Crooks, K.R. 2015. Mark-Recapture and Mark-Resight Methods for Estimating Abundance with Remote Cameras: A Carnivore Case Study. <i>PLoS ONE </i> 10(3): e0123032.
  5. Thornton, D.H, and Perkins, C.E. 2015. Spatially explicit capture–recapture analysis of bobcat (<i>Lynx rufus</i>) density: implications for mesocarnivore monitoring. <i>Wildlife Research</i> 42: 394-404.
  6. Montague, D.M. 2014. Diet and Feeding Ecology of the Coyotes, Black Bears, and Bobcats in Western Virginia, and Preliminary Assessment of Coyote Parasites. Virginia Tech, Masters Thesis.
  7. Broman,D.J.A., Litvaitis ,J.A., Ellingwood, M., Tate, P. and Reed, G.C. 2014. Modeling bobcat <i>Lynx rufus</i> habitat associations using telemetry locations and citizen-scientist observations: are the results comparable? <i>Wildlife Biology</i> 20: 229–237.
  8. Diefenbach, D.R., Hansen, L.A., Miller-Butterworth, C., Bohling, J.H., Warren, R.J. and Conroy, M.J. 2013. Re-introduction of bobcats to Cumberland Island, Georgia, USA: status and lessons learned after 25 years. In: Soorae, P.S. (ed.), IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group and Environment Agency, pp. 235-240. Abu Dhabi.
  9. González-Salazar, C., Stephens, C.R. and P.A. Marquet. 2013. Comparing the relative contributions of biotic and abiotic factors as mediators of species’ distributions. <i>Ecological Modelling</i> 248: 57-70.
  10. Peers, M.J.L., Thornton, D.H. and Murray, D.L. 2013. Evidence for large-scale effects of competition: niche displacement in Canada lynx and bobcat. <i>Proceedings Royal Society</i> B 280: 1-10.
  11. Reding, D.M., Cushman, S.A., Gosselink, T.E. and Clark, W.R. 2013. Linking movement behavior and fine-scale genetic structure to model landscape connectivity for bobcats (<i>Lynx rufus</i>). <i>Landscape Ecology</i> 28: 471-486.
  12. Tracey, J.A., Zhu, J., Boydson, E., Lyren, L., Fisher, R.N. and Crooks, K.R. 2013. Mapping behavioral landscapes for animal movement: a finite mixture modeling approach. <i>Ecological Applications</i> 23: 654-669.
  13. Serieys, L.E.K., Foley, J., Owens, S., Woods, L., Boydston, E.E., Lyren, L.M., Poppenga, R.H., Clifford, D.L., Stephenson, N., Rudd, J. and Riley, S.P.D. 2013. Serum chemistry, hematologic, and post-mortem findings in free-ranging bobcats (<i>Lynx rufus</i>) with notoedric mange. <i>Journal of Parasitology</i> 99: 989-996.
  14. Ruell, E.W., Riley, S.P.D., Douglas, M.R., Antolin, M.F., Pollinger, J.R., Tracey, J.A., Lyren, L.M., Boydston, E.E., Fisher, R.N. and Crooks, K.R. 2012. <i>Urban habitat fragmentation and genetic population structure of bobcats in coastal southern California.</i> 168: 265-280.
  15. Kapfer, P.M. and Potts, K.B. 2012. Socioeconomic and ecological correlates of bobcat harvest in Minnesota. <i>The Journal of Wildlife Management</i> 76: 237-242.
  16. Dorcas, M.E., Wilson, J.D., Reed, R.N., Snow, R.W., Rochford, M.R., Miller, M.A., Mesheka Jr., W.E., Andreadis, P.T., Mazzotti, F.J., Romagosa, C.M. and Hart, K.M. 2012. Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park. <i>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</i> 109(7): 2418-2422.
  17. Croteau, E.K., Heist, E.J., Nielsen, C.K., Hutchinson, J.R. and Hellgren, E.C. 2012. Microsatellites and mitochondrial DNA reveal regional population structure in bobcats (<i>Lynx rufus</i>) of North America. <i>Conservation Genetics</i> 13: 1637-1651.
  18. Reed, S.E. and Merenlender, A.M. 2011. Effects of management of domestic dogs and recreation on carnivores in protected areas in northern California. <i>Conservation Biology </i> 25: 504-513.
  19. Donovan, T.M., Freeman, M., Abouelezz, H., Royar, K., Howard, A. and Mickey, R. 2011. Quantifying home range habitat requirements for bobcats (<i>Lynx rufus</i>) in Vermont, USA. <i>Biological Conservation</i> 144: 2799-2809.
  20. Riley S.P.D., Boydston, E.E., Crooks, K.R. and Lyren, L.M. 2010. Bobcats (<i>Lynx rufus</i>). In: S.D. Gehrt, S.P.D. Riley and B.L. Cypher (eds), <i>Urban Carnivores: Ecology, Conflict, and Conservation</i>, pp. 121-140. The Johns Hopkins Univeristy Press, Baltimore, MD.
  21. Ordenana, M.A., Crooks, K.R., Boydston, E.E., Fisher, R.N., Lyren, L.M., Siudyla, S., Haas, C.D., Harris, S., Hathaway, S.A., Turschak, G.M., Miles, A.K. and Van Vuren, D.H. 2010. Effects of urbanization on carnivore species distribution and richness. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 91: 1322-1331.
  22. Lobo, N. and J.S. Millar. 2010. Photographic Evidence of Bobcats, <i>Lynx rufus</i>, in the Kananaskis Valley in Southwestern Alberta. <i>Canadian Field-Naturalist</i> 124: 260-262.
  23. Roberts, N.M. and Crimmins, S.M. 2010. Bobcat population status and management in North America: evidence of large-scale population increase. <i>Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management</i> 1: 169-174.
  24. Ferguson, A.W., Currit, N.A. and Weckerly, F.W. 2009. Isometric scaling in home-range size of male and female bobcats (<i>Lynx rufus</i>). <i>Canadian Journal of Zoology</i> 87: 1052-1060.
  25. Horne, J.S., Haines, A.M., Tewes, M.E. and Laack, L.L. 2009. Habitat partitioning by sympatric ocelots and bobcats: Implications for recovery of ocelots in southern Texas. <i>The Southwestern Naturalist</i> 54: 119-126.
  26. Vanak, A.T. and Gompper, M.E. 2009. Dogs <i>Canis familiaris</i> as carnivores: their role and function in intraguild competition. <i>Mammal Review</i> 39: 265-283.
  27. Hass, C.C. 2009. Competition and coexistence in sympatric bobcats and pumas. <i>Journal of Zoology</i> 278: 174-180.
  28. Daoust, P-Y., McBurney, S.R., Godson, D.L., van de Bildt, M.W.G. and Osterhaus, A.D.M.E. 2009. Canine distemper virus–associated encephalitis in free-living lynx (Lynx canadensis) and bobcats (<i>Lynx rufus</i>) of eastern Canada. <i>Journal of Wildlife Diseases</i> 45: 611–624.
  29. Ruell, E.W., Riley, S.P.D., Douglas, M.R., Pollinger, J.R. and Crooks, K.R. 2009. Estimating bobcat population sizes and densities in a fragmented urban landscape using noninvasive capture–recapture sampling. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 90: 129-135.
  30. Sánchez-Cordero, V., Stockwell, D., Sarkar, S., Liu, H., Stephens, C.R. and Giménez, J. 2008. Competitive interactions between felid species may limit the southern distribution of bobcats <i>Lynx rufus</i>. <i>Ecography </i> 31: 757-764.
Évaluateurs & contributeurs (2)Expert
assessor
Kelly, M., Morin, D. & Lopez-Gonzalez, C.A.
evaluator
Nowell, K., Hunter, L., Schipper, J., Breitenmoser-Wursten, C., Lanz, T. and Breitenmoser, U.

Kelly, M., Morin, D. & Lopez-Gonzalez, C.A. 2016. Lynx rufus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T12521A50655874. Accessed on 05 May 2026.

Traits biologiques

21 valeurs · 8 sources

Morphologie(4)

Masse adulte
9,4 kg
AnAge
Masse naissance
265 g
AnAge
Masse au sevrage
1,2 kg
AnAge
Longueur
69 cm
PanTHERIA

Cycle de vie(1)

Longévité max
32 ans
AnAge
Voir 16 traits de plus (3 catégories)

Reproduction(6)

Sevrage
2,1 mois
AnAge
Taille de portée
3
AnAge
Maturité sexuelle
2 ans
AnAge
Portées par an
1
AnAge
Gestation
2,1 mois
AnAge
Intervalle naissances
1 ans
AnAge

Écologie & habitat(9)

Invertébrés (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Graines (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Fruits (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Nectar (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Charognard (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Poissons (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Autre végétal (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Vert. ectothermes (%)
0 %
elton_mammals
Vert. endothermes (%)
100 %
elton_mammals

Divers(1)

Taux métabolique
23.45 W
AnAge

Sources priorisées par qualité scientifique (peer-reviewed spécialisées → Wikidata fallback). Unités auto-converties, valeur max retenue en cas de mesures multiples. Méthodologie · Citations.

Répartition mondiale

Aucune observation géoréférencée avec précision suffisante (<10 km) dans GBIF pour cette espèce.

Consulter sur les bases externes

Observations & statuts

Cartographie

Bibliographie

Note nomenclaturale & synonymesExpert

Note nomenclaturale

TAXREF v18 — INPN/MNHN

Synonymes (3)— redirigent vers cette page

  • Felis rufusSchreber, 1777
  • Lynx rufus escuinapaeJ. A. Allen, 1903
  • Lynx rufus oaxacensisGoodwin, 1963

Sources : Catalogue of Life Cross-References (synonymes) · TAXREF v18 INPN/MNHN (commentaires FR).