Talk:Euarchonta

Insufficient context

I've tried to add a context paragraph. Tedernst, can you look to see whether this addresses your concerns, and either remove the gripe tag or explain what else is needed? Thanks -- the whole upper part of the mammal tree can use a bit more work! ACW 19:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Intermediate taxa

Why delete the intermediate taxa introduced by Nickschutz? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, UtherSRG, but you seem to. Is there any consensus policy? If there isn't, maybe we could start to formulate one. What are people's opinions on how detailed taxonomic pedigrees should be?

My thoughts: recent advances in molecular biology have enabled great increases in our understanding of the branching order of the tree of life. The result is that biologists have been discovering new taxa that fit between the levels of traditional taxonomies. It will take a while for Wikipedia to catch up to these advances. For example, the Glires clade represents the realization that rodents are more closely related to rabbits than they are to any other order. The Glires article lists rodents as an immediate inferior, but Rodents does not (yet) include Glires as an immediate superior.

On the other hand, a complete taxonomic pedigree would introduce more sound than light, and it would be great if we could come to agreement about which taxa are salient and useful to the reader. I'm sure we don't want the complete pedigree, which as I understand it now runs: Eukaryota*, Fungi/Metazoa Group, Metazoa (= Animalia)**, Eumetazoa*, Bilateria*, Coelomata, Deuterostomia*, Chordata**, Craniata, Vertebrata*, Gnathostomata, Teleostomi, Euteleostomi, Sarcopterygii, Tetrapoda, Amniota, Mammalia**, Theria*, Eutheria**, Euarchontoglires**, Euarchonta**. (The **'s mark the taxa Uther lists; the *'s mark the ones that Nick wanted to add. The others are all listed on NCBI's taxonomy site.) -(unsigned User:ACW)

I tend to think that immediate superiors should definitely be included. Glires should be listed on the rodent pedigree. As for higher level superiors, only major landmarks should be included (such as the simple Linnaean categories). An exception should be made if someone may be getting confused by current taxonomy and adding extra layers could help that. For example, MSW2 has Mystromyinae in Muridae, but MSW3 has it in Nesomyidae. By adding the superfamily, Muroidea, to the Mystromys taxobox, one could more easily sort how the new and old taxonomies differ. --Aranae 23:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Bats and Archonta

The article presently states that morphological data “continues to call into question whether or not bats should be excluded from Archonta”. The article also says that some researchers believe that bats are diphyletic. I believe these statements are out of date, considering that the scientific literature of the last several years has demonstrated a clear consensus in favour of the monophyly of bats; see discussion at the archives of the Science RefDesk. --Mathew5000 (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unranked clade, or superorder?

Article seems to contain multitudes on this point. Alai (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)