tlacoocelotl.

In the ongoing discussion of cat terms Kier Salmon brings up the subject of Nahuatl *ocelotl*. The latter (*o:ce:lo:tl*) is actually 'jaguar' par excellence, whereas *tla'coo:ce:lo:tl *(literally, 'semi-jaguar') is 'ocelot'. I have no idea why Dibble and Anderson (or Anderson and Dibble) decided to continue translating plain *o:ce:lo:tl* simply as 'ocelot', which is quite a misleading definition. The zoologist they consulted, Stephen Durrant, recommended 'jaguar' over their 'ocelot' (Florentine Codex, Bk. 11, 1963, p. 1, fn. 2), but they stuck to their translation. As a result, they rendered both *o:ce:lo:tl* and *tla'coo:ce:lo:tl* as "ocelot".

The indigenous consultants for the Florentine Codex descriptions, however, clearly regarded the *tla'coo:ce:lo:tl*, which they also named the * tla'comiztli* ('semi-puma'), as a separate animal, not merely a different kind of *o:ce:lo:tl*, as the following passage (FC 11: 3) implies: , translated by Dibble and Anderson as "OCELOT Also they name it *tlacomiztli*. It is small, squat, rather long, the same as a Castilian cat; ashen, whitish, varicolored -- varicolored like an ocelot, blotched with black". The significant translational oddity here is the comparison: "OCELOT [...] small, [...], the same as a Castilian cat, [...] -- varicolored like an *ocelot*". Clearly, 'OCELOT [...] -- varicolored like a *jaguar*' would be a better fit.

We don't know whether Aztec *o'o:ce:lo'* only wore jaguar skins, or whether some of them were running around in ocelot uniforms. The evidence strongly favours a primary association with jaguars, for cultic, cosmological and ideological reasons. Thus, for practical purposes, the translation "jaguar warriors" is still okay.
Gordon Whittaker, Aztlan Listserv posting, Feb. 25, 2012.