Talk:Pinniped

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Arctic B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic 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.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

According to the this article Odobenidae is a subfamily of Pinnipedia while Walrus claims that Odobenidae is a family. Which is true? --EnSamulili 16:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both are true, depending on what classification scheme one follows. Newer systems (cladistics) tend to deemphasize the old heirarchy of divisions in favor of clades, which are composed of all descendants of a common ancestor. Tom Radulovich 03:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Which classification is cladistic and which is older style? --EnSamulili 10:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was new classification of the Pinnipides. I think that for such a change, a source would be necessary. -EnSamulili 20:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary origin

Is there any information on what seals evolved from?

The German Wikipedia has info on that: w:de:Robben#Stammesgeschichte. Unfortunately I can't read German quite well enough to answer your question. -EnSamulili 17:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The pinnipeds are related to bears, according to my source (which is added to the article) DaMatriX 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is biased. You evolutionists print it like its a fact. What ever happened to " in the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth. Evolution is not a science, its a belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.88.239 (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to your view that god created the heavens and the earth, which is, what? A scientific theory? Backed up by scientific evidence and testable by the empirical method? That's not a belief, that's science? Stick to your Bible and leave science to scientists, please. 88.109.31.235 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is a theory. It isn't scientific fact. Religious Text such as the Bible is a "Belief". Either way, until it is proven, I also find that the information on every animal that includes it's evolutionary "theory" should be deleted until proven. However, do not replace it with religious text. Because then you'd still look like you were siding with someone here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.109.143 (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, the idea that, somehow, evolution is a belief and hasn't been proven is ridiculous. There is far more evidence to side with evolution than there is against it, and we're talking an immense amount of study, since Darwin and on. So I find it, not only appropriate, to speak of the evolutionary origin seals, but to insist upon it. If you can give me a proven alternative to evolutionary theory, with all the evidence for it included, I would change my opinion. As of now, evolution is and will always be very real. Julianrocksit (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Julianrocksit[reply]

Hybrids

This information would be more appropriate in the relevant species pages, doesnt seem particularly significant for the order as a whole. Should be removed if there are no objections --Parslad 19:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)][reply]

I agree DaMatriX 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution section

The current evolution section is a total disaster. Which is it - "Latest Oligocene", "early in the Oligocene", or "earliest Miocene"? The language is quite unprofessional, and what on Earth do wolves have to do with anything? Can somebody please clean up this mess? I could try, but I would rather that somebody who knows more about early pinnipeds do it, and who could add references for the information.

Actually, I can't stand it as it is, so I will do a little cleanup right now. But somebody knowledgeable in the area please go over it again. --mglg_(talk) 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have a seperate page dealing with their evolution, as in the Evolution of sirenians, horses and humans? Enlil Ninlil 05:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implications of Enaliarctos for the origins of pinnipeds

Add the below reference to this page:

Berta, A., C.E. Ray and A.R. Wyss. 1989. Skeleton of the oldest known pinniped, Enaliarctos mealsi. Science, 244:60-62.

Berta, Ray, and Wyss (1989) describe the skeleton of Enaliarctos, and list the characters of Enaliarctos that support a monophyletic Pinnipedia. The authors view this fossil as supporting a North Pacific origin for pinnipeds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, we were messing around and...

There's some pointless edits, it's late, it's the seal page. Tried to undo but I don't know wtf I'm doing so I just undid it by deleting the crap we added.

Somebody smart can mess with the undo log? Please and thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.90.84.103 (talk) 05:04, September 20, 2008 (UTC).

I fixed your edits... Azoreg (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnipeds in popular culture

I added a Pinnipeds in popular culture to try to help remove some of the cruft from this article. Azoreg (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seals in Borneo

I recently read (in English translation) a Dutch book that mentioned eating seal meat in Sarawak, Borneo. This strikes me as unlikely. Are there any seals in that area? There doesn't seem to be much on their worldwide distribution in this article 86.137.138.225 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about true seals, but maybe the author/translator was referring to Dugongs which may have been in the neighbourhood. You might also try listing this question at the reference desk, since talk pages are often slow to respond and (strictly speaking) are for discussion about how to improve the article rather than discussion about the topic. Hope this helps! --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference link broken

Hi, just thought I'd point out that the encarta page (reference 2) is gone and the link broken as a result. Fa6ade (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual cohersion

This should read coercion.Georg Seifert (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnipedia: the free encyclopedia about seals that anyone can edit

Why does the name of the superfamily sound like it'd be the name of a Wikia about seals? --Damian Yerrick (t | c) 23:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Greek paideia - meaning something like "education" - shares a "p" and a "d" with most Latin declensions of the word for "foot" (pēs: pedēs pedis pedī pedem pede). I trust this answer is at once sufficiently pedantic and disappointingly pedestrian. Eliezg (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy - should it include fossil genera and species or not?

Currently some extinct genera are listed, but many are not. If the section here is intended to list all (extant+extinct) species, than much more should be added (there are about a dozen genera of extinct walruses). If it is intended to list only living species (like for example at Cetacea page) then currently listed fossil genera should be deleted. Ruxax (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Pinnipedia" does not conform to typical ICZN rules

Out of curiosity, how is it that Pinnipedia is allowed as a Superfamily name since every other Superfamily name I've seen ends with the suffix -oidea. Shouldn't Pinnipedia actually be Pinnipedoidea or something similar? I'm not trying to upset what's already in place, I'm just curious. -- Myrddin_Wyllt 5/9/11

Oops, nevermind; I totally missed the same question asked above. However, still the question remains about why the Superfamily wasn't named after one of its member species? (as is typical in taxonomy) For example, shouldn't it be named Phocoidea, Odobenoidea or Otarioidea? Why Pinnipedia? Is there a species called Pinnipedus that somehow slipped past me? And does that mean other Superfamilies (related or non-related) could have a name that's not derived from member species or genera? It'd be helpful if someone from the ICZN (or someone with ICZN knowledge) could weigh in on this. Thanks again -- Myrddin_Wyllt 5-/911 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.188.9 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of sending an email to the ICZN, and I received a reply from Steven Tracey, ICZN Secretariat. Considering his reply, someone here at Wikipedia may want to make a change to the Pinnipedia page to reflect his response, which I copied and pasted here: Dear Mike, Pinnipedia Illiger, 1811 was proposed for the Order that includes the seals. When Pinnipedia is used at ranks at or below superfamily it is regulated by the ICZN Code, and Pinnipedia is not an available name. This is because it was not based on a genus group name considered valid when Pinnipedia was described. Hence it cannot be used at or below the level of superfamily and the Wikipedia entry is incorrect at present. Wilson & Reeder, 2005. Mammal species of the world does not give the relevant superfamily name, however Pinnipedia is listed as a synonym of the family Phocidae Gray, 1821, based on the seal genus Phoca Linnaeus, 1758. If a superfamily name were to be based on this family it would be Phocoidea Gray, 1821. -- Myrddin_Wyllt 6/9/11

the most carnivorous

cant be true