Talk:Synapsida

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 142.163.194.149 (talk) at 22:08, 11 December 2021 (→‎Synapsida as a class of non-mammalian representatives). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Class or subclass?

I noticed User:FunkMonk changed the classification from class Reptilia, subclass Synapsida to class Synapsida. I reverted the edits as I'd personally like to retain the traditional classification, though bout classifications are valid. So don't let this become an edit war, this is not a matter of phylogeny (which is amply covered in the text anyway), only on what should go in the taxo-box to serve Wikipedia best. A small round of pros and cons, please? Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I understand it, Synapsida are a subset of Amniota, not Reptilia. So what's the problem? Why keep outdated information? FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on how Reptilia is being used. Traditionally, Reptilia and Amniota are basically synonyms, and Reptilia is doubly paraphyletic wrt Aves and Mammalia. Newer evolutionary taxonomy schemes like Benton 2004 (which was the original basis for these pages, mostly my fault ;) ) try to reduce the paraphyly of Reptilia by making it synonymous with Sauropsida instead (as do some phylo definitions of Reptilia). Benton is the one who made Synapsida a class rather than subclass, but as far as I know he's also the ONLY one, making it a minority usage. On the other hand, we'd have to restrucute the classifications and possibly merge Reptilia with Amniota or really intertwine them the way Reptilia is currently intertwined with Sauropsida, if we went back to the "traditional" reptilian subclasses. But even then, some of those traditional subclasses are themselves multiply paraphyletic, like Euryapsida. So it's a sticky situation not helped by the fact that PhyloCode is still years away and there's no consensus definition of Reptilia. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As MMartyniuk said, the whole systematic is in the process if recasting these days. What the outcome will be is anyones guess, personally i hope for a divorce between Linnaean and phylogenetic systematics (bout have their uses, but trying to combine them just muddies the water). Until we know, we'll just have to stick to something that is practical for the taxobox, and put all the back and forth in the text (see Reptile for a good example of just that). The question is: Is Benton's class going to be the stable and most used outcome, or are we better served by sticking to the traditional, though possibly outdated subclass? I saw Synapsida used as a subclass of Reptilia in a standard textbook printed as late as 2001, so while it is certainly not modern, I'm not sure I quite agree with "outdated". As the page "Reptilia" directs to now, using Synapsida as a subclass is OK, though it will no doubt draw flack from the cladisticans. --Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snyspida are not reptiles. They appeared earlier then replies. Instead they belong to anote, which repiles is also. Birds are also in reptiles as well, because dinosaurs are to. --209.188.40.63 (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on how you define reptiles. IF the molecular data uniting turtles with archosaurs are correct, and IF one use a strict crown group definition based on extant reptiles, you are correct. Phylogenetic classification is not the only show in town though. Class reptilia is commonly understood to be a grade, and early critters like Casineria is also commonly described as a reptile, so there's no problem including synapsids in Reptilia. For the scientists, it is all a matter of taste and convenience, not of "right" or "wrong", and we should report it accordingly. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the monophyletic group definition, which is increasingly the consensus in biology. Therefore, extant reptiles include: (a) turtles; (b) Lepidosauria (tuatara, lizards, snakes, amphisbaenas); (c) Crocodylians; (d) birds. Therefore, despite the name "mammal-like reptiles", no synapsids are reptiles, and mammals are synapsids.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately taxonomical terms are just words, but some words can sow confusion. It is surely much easier for laypeople trying to understand evolution to learn that 'some amphibians evolved into reptiles, some of which evolved into birds or mammals' than 'some tetrapods evolved into amniotes some which evolved into synapsids'. There was nothing wrong with retaining the term 'reptiles' to informally mean 'amniotes which are not birds or mammals'. Choosing to use the common language word 'reptiles' to refer to 'amniotes which are not synapsids' might appeal to taxonomical purists but it was a bad idea from the point of view of popular understanding of science. The term 'mammal-like-reptiles' was not misleading (as the article claims): the unfortunate choice to alter the meaning of 'reptiles' has made it misleading. Merlin Cox (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synapsida as a class of non-mammalian representatives

Hello, well, I have already asked this question and I'm looking for the answer:

  • 1) And what can Synapsida rank shift to the class category for all non-mammalian representatives?
  • 2) And what can you move the Dinosauria rank to the rank of Super-order and not as a vulgar clade?

P.S the taxa concerced must have the following model: | always_display = true except for the aves class Aves (for the Mammalia class it will be the only one to have the Synapsida taxon as a clade) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prehistoricplanes (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please give sources that support treating Synapsida as a class and Dinosauria as a superorder. Plantdrew (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The references (its possible to find other references in time):

These are not considered to be reliable sources by Wikipedia. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this ? For Synapsida:

I'm afraid that those are all old sources that have since been outdated, and in one case (5) more or less directly says as much. Anaxial (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the Dinosauria:

For Synapsids (again) [1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Benson, R.J. (2012). "Interrelationships of basal synapsids: cranial and postcranial morphological partitions suggest different topologies". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 10 (4): 601–624. doi:10.1080/14772019.2011.631042.
  2. ^ "A new basal sphenacodontid synapsid from the Late Carboniferous of the Saar-Nahe Basin, Germany" (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 56 (1): 113–120. 2011. doi:10.4202/app.2010.0039. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  3. ^ https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c44/ab6ded322debc7895dba871e4b06ea2a36f1.pdf
I don't have access to the first of those, but the other two don't support the claim, so far as I can see, since neither use "class" as a taxonomic rank anywhere in the text. Anaxial (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to the first and the word "class" does not appear. But I think the central contention here is that Synapsida does not include mammals. I'm sorry, but it does - that's modern consensus, you can't impose what you think here. Indeed you will note that the very first sentence of the first paper says "Synapsida comprises Mammalia and all taxa more closely related to mammals than any other group of extant vertebrates (i.e. the mammalian total group)." Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
are all the non-mammalian synapsids extinct?142.163.194.149 (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lemma

The lemma of the article should be Synapsida, synchronous to Sauropsida. Currently, Synapsida refers to the current lemma. --Villem (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Not to be confused with" header

Is anyone really likely to confuse Synapsid with a synopsis?? --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Synapsida&oldid=1059830126"