Acknowledgments. Special acknowledgment goes to L. E. Williams, Jr., T. C. Hines, J. R. Brady, an T. H. Logan for criticism, advice, guidance and support provided during the investigation. Appreciation goes to R. Baudy, owner of the Rare Feline Breeding Compound near Centerhill, Florida, for donating his time, facilities, and animals for plaster-casts of tracks from various sex and age classes of panthers and to Roy T. McBride, professional mountain lion hunter, for his advice and time spent teaching the principal investigator to identify and interpret panther sign in the wild. We acknowledge Rocky T. McBride, S. Trupe, T. Breault, K. Reeves, C. McElvy, G. Eddie, G. Hatfield, S. Schwikert, and B.H. Williams for assistance in conduction field searches for panther sign and J. Brady and D. Austin for assistance in investigating sighting reports. Grateful appreciation also goes to all those who donated panther reports they had compiled, especially J.N. Layne, Executive Director of Archbold Biological Station; K.C. Alvarez, Interpretive Naturalist with the Florida Department of Natural Resources; S.D. Schemnitz, Head, Department of Forestry and Wildlife, New Mexico State University; J.A. Kushlan, O.S. Bass, and L. McEwan, Research Biologists, Everglades National Park; and D. Smith of Chiefland. Primary funding was provided by the FGFWFC through Florida's Nongame Wildlife Trust Fund and by federal grant-in-aid funds administered through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL No. 93-205). This investigation was also funded in part by grants from the National Wildlife Federation and Shikar Safari, Inc.

METHODS

When this study began, it was not known if a viable population of panthers still occurred in Florida. There were sighting reports and a few indisputable records of the species scattered over the state, but they did not reveal a discrete population that could be managed. Based on mountain lion literature from the western states and conversations with professional lion hunters, it was felt that where Florida panthers were present they could be detected during field searches by trained observers. A "Florida Panther Record Clearinghouse" was established at the FGFWFC's Wildlife Research Laboratory to collect and analyze panther reports in order to determine areas to be searched (Belden 1978a).

Florida Panther Record Clearinghouse

An initial data base was established from panther reports that had been compiled by J.N. Layne, Executive Director of Archbold Biological Station; K.C. Alvarez, Interpretive Naturalist with the Department of Natural Resources; S.D. Schemnitz, Head, Department of Forestry and Wildlife, New Mexico State University; J.A. Kushlan, Research Biologist at Everglades National Park and those on file at the Wildlife Research Laboratory. Panther reports were then received directly from the public either through one of the FGFWFC offices around the state or directly to the "Florida Panther Record Clearinghouse". Personnel in FGFWFC offices recorded panther reports on standardized report forms (Figure 1). When reports were received that were in any way promising, they were investigated as soon as possible, and the observers were interviewed. A special effort was made to find panther sign in the vicinity of investigated observations. The Wildlife Research Laboratory was notified as soon as possible if positive panther sign was found so that studies could be initiated to determine the geographical limits and viability of any possible panther population in the area.

All reports were separated into "confirmed" and "unconfirmed" groups and assigned to 1 of 5 categories (Belden and Williams 1976). "Confirmed Records" were either (1) dead or live-captured specimens or (2) plaster track casts, photographs of panthers or their tracks, or other sign that was positively attributable to a panther. While both types of evidence indicate the presence of the species, only the first (specimen) was available for examination as to subspecies. This was particularly important in view of the significant numbers of captive cougars held in this state, some of which had escaped or have been intentionally released. There was no way to distinguish tracks of wild Florida panthers from those of other subspecies.

"Unconfirmed Reports" lacked documentation (e.g., track casts and photographs). These were divided into categories (3), visual observations by specially qualified observers such as Commission personnel, naturalists, and foresters; and (4), observations from less qualified persons. The last category, (5), included investigated reports that were unfounded and the many completely uncreditable reports, such as panthers in mid-city, panthers eating from garbage cans, or black panthers.

In order to advise the public what information to report for each panther sighting, an article was published in Florida Wildlife Magazine (Belden 1977) and many interviews with reporters were published in newspapers. Meetings were held with FGFWFC wildlife biologists and many Department of Natural Resources personnel to explain the investigation and solicit their cooperation. Each was given a packet consisting of a copy of the Clearinghouse record from and reprints on how to identify panther tracks (Belden 1978b) and how to make plaster casts. The Kurskal-Wallis test and a multiple comparison procedure for mean ranks (Hollander and Wolfe 1973) were used to evaluate the number of unconfirmed reports per capita between counties with consistent panther documentation, counties with occasional panther documentation, and counties with no panther documentation. Probabilities < 0.01 were considered significant.

Field Searches

Systematic field searches for panther sign were conducted in areas considered most likely to contain panthers. Suitable roads, trails, firelanes, levees, and tree islands were searched for tracks, scats, scrapes, kills, or other sign. This was accomplished mainly by walking but also by utilizing horses, swamp-buggies, all-terrain cycles, airboats, and a slow-moving pickup truck with an observer on the hood. Specially-trained dogs were utilized in the searches when available and where practicable. A record was kept of the distance traveled and sign observed. These data were summarized as amount of sign found per kilometer for each area searched.

RESULTS

Florida Panther Record Clearinghouse

A total of 4,620 records was filed in the Clearinghouse. The majority of these reports was received from people who called into one of the FGFWFC offices (Table 1). An average of 268 (s.d. = 176, range = 71 - 563) reports was received per year (Table 2). Reports were fairly equally divided among the seasons (Table 3). There were 91 confirmed records from 21 (31%) of the 67 counties (Table 4). However, specimens that were determined to be Florida panthers came from only 4 counties: Collier, Dade, Glades, and Volusia.

When counties were grouped by the documented presence of panthers (known breeding population of panthers, panthers occasionally present, and no panthers documented) and the number of unconfirmed reports per capita were compared between these groups, the number of unconfirmed reports per capita were compared between these groups, the number of unconfirmed reports was significantly higher in those counties where panthers were only occasionally documented that in those counties where there had been no panthers documented. There was no significant difference in the number of unconfirmed reports per capita between the counties that were known to have a breeding population of panthers (Collier, Dade, and Hendry) and those counties in which panthers were only occasionally present (Marion, Orange, Glades, Monroe, Volusia, Putnam, Lee, Palm Beach, Osceola, Flagler, Highlands, Broward, Okeechobee, and Indian River) or those counties in which there had been no documentation of panthers. This lack of significance may be due to the small sample size for counties that were known to have a breeding population of panthers.

Sightings and tracks (either associated with sightings or by themselves) made up 93.26% of the reports (Table 5). Supporting evidence was supplied with only 404 (9%) of the reports. Tracks (either investigated at the site or plaster casts or photographs sent to the Clearinghouse) were the most common form of evidence (Table 6). The majority (69%) or the 404 records accompanied by documentation proved to be dogs (Canis domesticus) or bobcats (Felis rufus). Only ninety-one (23%) were determined to be from panthers. In 14 (3%) of the cases where evidence was available, it was impossible to determine the animal in question.

The majority (55%) of reports involving sightings though to be panthers described the animal as being tan or brown (55%). However, 12% were described as being black, and 8% were described as being gray or mixed (usually gray and black) (Table 7). The observed animals were usually described as weighing from 1 to 45 kg (x = 33, s.d. = 17.27) (Table 8), being from 31-91 cm high (x = 68, s.d. = 20.18) (Table 9), having a body length between 62 and 122 cm (x = 107, s.d. = 31.44) (Table 10), and a tail length between 31 and 91 cm (x = 69, s.d. = 26.26) (Table 11). These animals were usually reported to have been less than 50 meters (x = 45, s.d. = 77.28) from the observer at the time of observation (Table 12), and the observations usually lasted from < 5 seconds (x = 3, s.d. = 6.82) (Table 13). Observations were reported to have occurred most commonly between 0700 and 1000 hours and 1700 and 1800 hours (Figure 2). The animals were most commonly observed beside or crossing a road (Table 14). Of the 76 dead animals reported to be panthers (the majority of which were dead on a road), 29 were investigated; 18 (62%) of these turned out to be dogs or bobcats, and 6 (21%) were panthers. Panther observations were reported from nearly every habitat available in Florida (Table 15). Livestock depredation was reported involved in only 334 (7%) of the records, and of these, the majority (40%) involved chickens (Table 16).

Field Surveys

Field surveys were conducted on 52 areas (Table 17). During these surveys 4,427+ man-hours were spent searching in excess of 15,219 km of dirt roads, trails, and firelanes. Panther sign was found on 16 of these areas (Table 18). Sign included 3 sightings, 118 track sets, 29 scats, and 64 scrapes (Table 19). Panther sign was found consistently in south Florida but only sporadically along the St. Johns River watershed (Figure 3).

DISCUSSION

When this study began in 1976, it was thought that if a map-pin were put into a map at each panther report location, the areas were the pins clustered would be where field surveys for panther sign should be conduced. We found, however, that if a pin were put in the map for each panther report, the pins would nearly blank out a map of Florida.

The 4,620 panther reports received by Florida Panther Record Clearinghouse only represent a minimum number of panther reports in Florida during the past 15 years. There are many reports that never reach the FGFWFC, and only a portion of those which do reach the Commission are submitted to the Clearinghouse. Due to the never-ending stream of panther reports from throughout the state and knowing that a large number of reports have been investigated and found to be false, it is difficult for Commission personnel to be extremely interested in recording panther reports. Also, there are many times that the circumstances under which reports are given to Commission personnel do not lend themselves to being recorded and passed on to the Clearinghouse. For example, a person may come up to a Commission employee, usually while the employee is pumping gas or at some other inconvenient time, and tell about a panther they recently saw. Somewhere in the story the person relating the sighting may refer to the animal as being "a big ole black un". Whereupon the Commission employee smiles, thanks the person for the information, and goes on about his business. These records rarely reach the Clearinghouse. The personal interview records received in the Clearinghouse, therefore, may be biased toward those that at least sound more credible. Those reports which were phoned or mailed to a FGFWFC office were more likely to be recorded on a standardized form and sent to the Clearinghouse.

The report color and size of many of the sighted animals indicated that many are animals other than Florida panthers. Although there are frequent reports, there are no authenticated records of black panthers anywhere in North America (Tinsley 1970, 1987). The "black panther" that people see in zoos is a black color phase of the leopard (Panthera pardus) or jaguar (Panthera onca). Black-colored leopards are considered rare in Africa, but more common in India (Dahne 1958). Jaguars are found in Central America and southwestern North America (Hall 1981). Although melanistic bobcats have been reported from southern Florida (Ulmer 1941, Paradiso 1973, Regan and Maehr 1990), there are no documented specimens of melanistic Florida panthers. Cases of melanism in F. concolor are known only from Central and South America (Young and Goldman 1946, Tinsley 1987).

Evidence submitted to support panther reports showed that even though the majority of these reports were based on dogs or bobcats, a variety of other animals were occasionally involved (Table 6). It is difficult for most people to judge the size of an animal at a distance, as most deer hunters can attest. When this is combined with the fact that the majority of reported panther sightings lasted less than 5 seconds, it is easy to see how a dog or a bobcat could be misidentified as a panther.

The 91 confirmed panther records filed in the Florida Panther Record Clearinghouse also do not comprise all documented panther occurrences. The records filed in the Clearinghouse do not include information gathered during Florida panther research utilizing radio-telemetry. A tremendous number of man-hours has been spent searching for, capturing, and monitoring radio-instrumented Florida panthers since February 1981. Fifty-one individual panthers have been captured 118 times since that study began (Belden 1986, Maehr 1990, Roelke 1990). Field sign found during the early capture operation and the year-round monitoring of radio-instrumented animals is the primary basis for determining the distribution of the panther in south Florida. Although the core of this population has shifted over the years, and panthers are now functionally extirpated in certain areas (Roelke 1991), the only known resident breeding population of Florida panthers during this study has occurred in Collier, Dade, and Hendry Counties. It is our opinion that individual animals moving out of this population account for the sporadic occurrence of panthers in Glades, Monroe, Lee, Palm Beach, Highlands, and Broward counties, and possibly the sporadic occurrence of panthers along the St. Johns River watershed in Orange, Volusia, Putnam, Osceola, Flagler, Okeechobee, and Indian River counties.

The potential for escaped or released captive cougars has further confounded efforts to determine the true distribution of the Florida panther. It has been estimated that there are over 1,000 captive cougars in Florida, and it is known that captive cougars escape regularly (Capt. B. L. Cook, FGFWFC, pers. commun.). Although the majority of these cats are recaptured, not all are. A panther shot by a deputy sheriff in Citrus county in 1968, the hide of which is in the Ocala FGFWFC office, did not possess any of the pelage features which characterize the Florida panther. This animal probably represented a released or escaped captive. Two panther illegally killed in Palm Beach County in 1983 and 1984 did not possess the characteristics of the Florida panther and were determined genetically to be of another subspecies (Roelke, FGFWFC, pers. commun.). These were probably released captives. in 1988, 2 captive cougars were intentionally released by a private individual in Jefferson County. One of these animals was killed by a car, but the other has never been recovered. Proposed developments that are opposed by environmentalists can be a hot spot for panther reports. People have the misconception that if they can prove there is a panther in an area, they can stop a development. This may lead some less-than-honest people to stage a "panther" sighting (or even to release a captive cougar into an area) to prove that Florida panthers live there. There were several panther reports for which this may have been the case. A photograph of a panther sitting in a firelane was made during a 1975 environmental impact study in the Ocala National Forest (a very unusual behavior for a wild panther and the only such photograph submitted in the 15 years of our study. No panther sign had been found in this area before and none has been found since. A plaster cast of a panther track was reported to have been made in the vicinity of a controversial IT&T land development project in Flagler County in 1983 after a $100 reward was posted for anyone able to document the presence of panthers in the area. From this time through early 1988, panther sign was found sporadically along the St. Johns River watershed. The possibility exists that this sign was left by a cougar(s) released into this area to provide evidence to be used in opposing this development.

Although undocumented panther reports were more abundant, on a per capita basis, in those counties that had a resident panther population or panthers occasionally present, there was no way to distinguish true reports from false reports. It was only through documented field sign that the presence of panthers were determined.

In every case over the past 15 years that panther sign was documented, a panther was accounted for. When the Clearinghouse was first initiated in 1976, we were presented with plaster casts of panther tracks by Ken Alvarez of the Florida Department of Natural Resources. He led us into the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, where the casts had been made, and fresh panther sign was found. In fact panther sign was found consistently whenever a search was made in that area. This area became the initial study area for the capture and radio-instrumenting of Florida panthers (Belden 1981). In 1978, a Florida panther was illegally killed on the east side of the Big Cypress National Preserve (Belden and Forrester 1980). Subsequent field work in this area by Sonny Bass of Everglades National Park consistently resulted in panther sign being found. This became the second study area for the capture and radio-instrumenting of Florida panthers.

During the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) hunting season of 1983, D. K. Jansen and T. W. Regan of the FGFWFC found panther sign in the Fisheating Creek WMA; two weeks later a panther was killed by a car in that area. In August and October 1987, panther sign was found on the Archbold Biological Station in Highlands County (Layne and Wassmer 1988). The following capture season (January - March) a young male was captured and radio-instrumented (Maehr 1988). In December 1987, a panther skeleton was found by a hunter in the Farmton Wildlife Management Area (WMA), in Volusia County. There were fresh panther scrapes and scats nearby, indicating another panther was still alive. Shortly after this, a sample of what appeared to be panther hair was taken from the grill of a car which reportedly had hit a panther. The technique of searching dirt roads and trails for panther sign has been used repeatedly in Arizona (Shaw 1979, 1980), California (Fitzhugh and Gorenzel 1985, Koford 1977, Sitton 1977, Weaver 1982), and Nevada (Ashman et al. 1983, Molini 1976). It is also the long-established method used by panther hunters (Bruce 1922).

Van Dyke (1983) studied the interactions of panthers with roads and the effectiveness of searches for tracks on roads as a means of assessing panther populations on 3 study areas in Arizona and Utah. He found that panthers crossed roads at least once every 5-12 days and that road crossing frequencies were related to road densities within home areas of individual panthers. In the St. Johns River watershed, dirt road density was 0.39 km/km sq., which is similar to Van Dyke's 0.25, 0.26, and 0.43 km/km sq. on his study areas. In his Utah study area, in which all of the resident panthers were radio-collared, Van Dyke (1983) found that under all tracking conditions, resident females required the least effort to detect (51.1 km +- 27.4 km searched per track set found) and that 100% of resident panthers, 78% of transient panthers, and 57% of kittens were detected by track searches. Given the intensity and frequency with which the area along the St. Johns River watershed was searched (under different weather patterns and tracking conditions), we conclude that there was not a resident population of panthers in this area. This conclusion is supported by the fact that, in addition to the work we did in the area, many concerned citizens and conservation organizations also searched for panther sign in this area without success. This has been true with many other areas in Florida as well. Based on our analyses of panther tracks over the past 15 years, we concluded that heel pad width is the least variable measurement and total track width and heel pad length are the most variable. This variability is due to the differential spreading of the toes depending upon the speed with which the animal is moving and the substrate. Based on the consistency of heel pad width measurements, we believe that the sporadic panther sign found along the St. Johns River watershed represented 2 animals. As there was no evidence to indicate a breeding population, these animals may have been transients from some other area or captive animals that escaped or were intentionally released.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience has shown that sighting reports can be obtained wherever you go in Florida. The number of reports received being determined by the extent to which these reports are solicited. Sighting reports without documented evidence, regardless of the qualifications of the observers, were not useful in determining areas to be surveyed. Systematic field surveys and information gained through radio-telemetry, on the other hand, have shown that the only resident breeding population of panthers in Florida occurs in the Big Cypress and Everglades physiographic region, primarily in Dade, Collier, and Hendry Counties.

QUESTIONS:

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: (Inaudible.)

MR. BELDEN: Well, that's not true. Particularly, in the early days. I know what you are saying. And there have been a lot of changes over the past fourteen years. I guess, to answer your question, we are not really soliciting sighting reports at this time. We have done it for fourteen years. We believe that we have identified the only resident breeding population of the Florida panthers that exists in the world.
We do follow up. If somebody submits to us documented evidence, we do follow up on that and try to determine what it represents. That's what happened in the St. Johns River marsh. A hunter found a skull on one of the management areas, which appeared to be consistent with it being a Florida panther. We documented fresh sign in the area where we retrieved that skeleton. So that's when we initiated the work. We used Roy and his dogs. We spent three or four years searching the St. Johns. We would find sporadic sign. All the sign we found appeared to be a small male, a couple of small males. And it was round 1990 that a lady reported that she had hit a panther, that we were able to retrieve a hair sample out of her grill and send it to Laurie Wilkins, and it appeared to be consistent with a panther. We have not had any sign, documented evidence of panthers in that area since.
Sign ranged all the way from Indian River County up to Putnam County. There appeared to a couple of more of less nomadic or transient males moving up and down that tributary. But as far as the sighing reports go, we really do not solicit them. They really do not do us any good. We encourage people that if they do have a panther sighting, to do everything they can to try to find evidence of the animal in the area where they saw the sighting. It's only the tracks or scats or scrapes, really only the documented evidence that we can do anything with.

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: I have a concern that you've actually gone through the areas that have reported sighting systematically making a determination on distribution, it seems like that's what they're saying, but when an agency asks for information whether panther exists in the area, and you say, "Well, we have no records of sightings in that area," it's misleading, because it assumes that there is no panthers in those areas. But, the only way you're going to know is if you systematically survey those areas to determine it. And you have stated that you will not go out into areas and survey it, and you don't want people to call you up, but in terms of assuring that this habitat is protected, you have to have a good data base where ever they are. Are you going to follow that in terms of panther habitat preservation plan to assure knowledge and understanding of hat habitat where they can be maintained as part of your management plan.

MR. BELDEN: So what is the specific question?

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Are you going to survey, if you have a plan to preserve habitats, are you going to survey to see if you have panthers in those areas and insure that that habitat is being management properly so that then you maintain a population of panthers in those areas.

MR. BELDEN: Are you Speaking specifically of south Florida?

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: I'm talking about areas included in the Habitat Preservation Plan. And it seems to me that a lot of the areas where you have essential panther habitat, you'll be surveying them, but nobody is managing those areas for panthers.

MR. BELDEN: I don't know that I can answer that question. I'm not working in south Florida. I'm not part of that program. But as far as the study goes, as far as from 1976 to 1990, we feel that, as everybody that gets up here will tell you, where panthers are present, they do leave sign, they leave a lot of sign. People that are studying black bears, they don't go by sightings, they go by bait stations, they look for their sign, look for their tracks. The same is true with bobcats.
People have this idea that this is some kind of a mystical animal. But it's not. It's just like any other animal. And where it lives, it leaves quite a bit of sign. And over that fourteen years, not only have we been doing the sign survey, the systematic searches in the areas that are scattered throughout Florida, but we've also been doing an awful lot of work on the biology of the animal. And what we know about the biology of the animal, we believe that we've fairly well documented the breeding population.
And we do know that we have transients that move out of this population. I think that's probably what we were seeing along the St. Johns. As far as specific small areas that some private landowner may have, that may have panthers that move through it, may have panthers that it may incorporate some part of their home range. But when you're talking about an animal where the male can encompass anywhere from a hundred to five hundred square miles, and the females anywhere from forty to a hundred square miles, and their social structure is such that when they have kittens, and these kittens are about eighteen months to two years old, they disperse. And those are the ones that get run over on the highways and get shot by hunters. They have to go somewhere. So they just, they show up.

LITERATURE CITED

Ashman, D. L., G. C. Christensen, M .L. Hess, G. K. Tsukamoto, and M. S. Wickersham. 1983. The mountain lion in Nevada. Nevada Dept. Wildl. 75pp.

Belden, R. C. 1977. If you see a panther. Fla. Wildl. 31:31-34.

____. 1978a. Florida panther investigation -- a 1978 progress report. Pages 123-133 in R. R. Odum and L. Landers, eds. Proceedings of the Rare and Endangered Wildlife Symposium. Ga. Dept. Nat. Resour. Tech. Bull. WL4, 184pp.

____. 1978b. How to recognize panther tracks. Proc. Ann. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Fish & Wildl. Agencies 32:122-115.

____. 1981. It was the hunt of a lifetime. Fla. Wildl. 35:20-23.

____.1986. Florida panther recovery plan implementation--a 1983 progress report. Pages 159-172 in S. D. Miller and D. D. Everett, eds. Cats of the world: biology, conservation, and management. Natl. Wildl. Fed., Washington, D. C. 501pp.

____, and D. J. Forrester. 1980. A specimen of Felis concolor coryi from Florida. J. Mamm. 61:160-161.

____, and L. E. Williams, Jr. 1976. Survival status of the Florida panthers. Pages 78-98 in P. C. H. Pritchard, ed., Proceedings of the Florida Panther Conference, Orlando, Fl. 121pp.

Bruce, J. 1922. The why and how of mountain lion hunting in California. Calif. Fish and Game 8:108-114.

Dahne, B. 1958. The truth about black panthers. Fla. Wildl. 12:26-27, 48.

Fitzhugh, E. L., and P. Gorenzel. 1985. Biological status of mountain lions in California. Pages 336-346 in T.P. Salmon, ed. Proceedings Twelfth Vertebrate Pest Conference. Univ. California, Davis.

Hall, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Vol. II. John Wiley and Sons. New York, N.Y. 1181pp.

Hollander, M., and D. A. Wolfe. 1973. Nonparametric statistical methods. John Wiley and Sons. New York, N.Y. 503pp.

Koford, C. B. 1977. Status and welfare of the puma Felis concolor in California, 1973-1976. Final report to the Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Soc., Mus. Vert. Zool., Univ. Calif., Berkeley. 57 pp.

Layne, J. N., and D. A. Wassmer. 1988. Records of the panther in Highlands County, Florida. Florida Field Naturalist. 16:70-72.

Maehr, D. S. 1988. Florida panther movements, social organization and habitat utilization. Annual performance report, Endangered Species Project E-1-12, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., Tallahassee.

____. 1990. Florida panther movements, social organization, and habitat utilization. Final performance report, Endangered Species Project E-1-14, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., Tallahassee. 115pp.

Molini, W. 1976. Comments made in Christensen, G. C., and R. J. Fischer, Co-chairmen. Trans. of the Mountain Lion Workshop. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. and Nevada Fish and Game Dept., Nugget Sparks, Nevada. 213pp.

Paradiso, J. 1973. Melanism in Florida bobcats. Fla. Sci. 36:215-216.

Regan, T. W., and D. S. Maehr. 1990. Melanistic bobcats in Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 18:84-87.

Roelke, M. E. 1990. Florida panther biomedical investigation. Final performance report, Endangered Species Project E-1-14, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., Tallahassee. 175pp.

____. 1991. Florida panther biomedical studies. Annual performance report, Endangered Species Project E-1-15, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., Tallahassee.

Shaw, H. G. 1979. A mountain lion field guide. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Spec. Rept. No. 9. 27pp.

____. 1980. Ecology of the mountain lion in Arizona. Final Report, P-R Project W-78-R, Work Plan 2, Job 13. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 14 pp.

Sitton, L. W. 1977. California mountain lion investigations with recommendations for management. Final Report to the State Legislature, P-R. Project W-51-R, Sacramento: California Fish and Game Dept. 35pp.

Tinsley, J. B. 1970. The Florida panther. Great Outdoors Publishing Co., St. Petersburg, Fl. 60pp.

____. 1987. The puma, legendary lion of the Americas. Texas Western Press, El Paso. 142pp.

Ulmer, F. A., Jr. 1941. Melanism in the Felidae, with special reference to the genus Lynx. J. Mammal. 22:285-288.

Van Dyke, F. G. 1983. A western study of cougar track surveys and environmental disturbance affecting cougars related to the status of the eastern cougar Felis concolor cougar. Ph.D. Thesis. State Univ. of New York, Syracuse. 245pp.

Weaver, R. A. 1982. Status of the mountain lion in California with recommendations for management, Report to the State Legislature, P-R Project W-51-R, Sacramento: California Fish and Game Dept. 35pp.

Young, S. P., and E. A Goldman. 1946. The puma--mysterious American cat. Amer. Wildl. Inst., Washington, D.C. 358 pp.