Talk:Acinonyx kurteni

The fossil on which this taxon is based may be fraudulent. Koumz (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the original paper has been retracted, on the grounds that the holotype was a composite fossil (and presumably a deliberate forgery, although that isn't stated)[1]. As I understand it, it's no longer a valid name, since the animal never existed. Anaxial (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)