|WikiProject Mammals||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
I'm no expert, but this clade seems to correspond to the animals often described as "shrew-like", even though true shrews evolved later. E.g. see consestor 13 in Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale. Can we describe this as the clade that mostly remained "shrew-like" until after the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary? For now I've just linked that term here. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)