Jump to content

Talk:Afrotheria: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Atlantogenata: new section
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Mammals|class=start|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Mammals|class=start|importance=high}}
==Hyaenodontidae==

Until a published paper supports placing Hyaenodontidae in the Afrotheria, this should not be put here. I looked at Grohe et al. and there is no mention at all that hyaenodontids (or any of the subfamilies) are afrotherians.

==Old post==
==Old post==
None of the orders classified in Afrotheria appear to have anything to do with one another, other than a probable African origin. Not a single measurable character can be put forward to unite them.
None of the orders classified in Afrotheria appear to have anything to do with one another, other than a probable African origin. Not a single measurable character can be put forward to unite them.

Revision as of 15:17, 13 September 2015

WikiProject iconMammals Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hyaenodontidae

Until a published paper supports placing Hyaenodontidae in the Afrotheria, this should not be put here. I looked at Grohe et al. and there is no mention at all that hyaenodontids (or any of the subfamilies) are afrotherians.

Old post

None of the orders classified in Afrotheria appear to have anything to do with one another, other than a probable African origin. Not a single measurable character can be put forward to unite them.

So how did they get the DNA from Desmostylia and Embrithopoda? That's interesting. We just assume they belong in this group, which is defined solely on the basis of molecular data. Maybe these extinct orders are convergent too, just like the Afrosoricida were with the other insectivore groups?

Obviously this system breaks down completely when we try to classify extinct groups. Molecular biology provides only some of the answers. 153.2.246.35 (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct taxon

This edit, while probably improving overall presentation, removed some extinct clades from the phylogeny presented. Was there a reason for this or can they be readded? CMD (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantogenata

I don't think it's at all settled that Atlantogenata is a valid clade. The containing taxon on the taxobox should thus probably be changed to a more stable taxon, such as Eutheria. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]