Talk:Even-toed ungulate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mammals (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cetaceans (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cetaceans 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Grammar[edit]

The grammar in some parts of this article is terrible probably the stuff that's been translated from German it needs some cleaning up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.66.17 (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Cetartiodactyla[edit]

The Cetartiodactyla link at the bottom of the second paragraph leads right back to the Artiodactyla. Seems rather pointless! Perhaps the page should be changed to Cetartiodactyla as it's more scientifically correct, with artiodactyla redirecting to Cetartiodactyla rather than the other way round, and even toed ungulate leading to a page about the historical wastebasket group rather than the scientific information, similar to the pages for cetacea and whales (see the nomination for deletion for the 'whale' article.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.73.39 (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Bovidae?[edit]

Are sheep and goats really bovidae? Vicki Rosenzweig, Saturday, June 8, 2002

Yes they are, but they are not bovinae. Bovidae include all the ruminants with conical or heliconical horns, goats, sheep, and antelopes as well as cows. The families of ruminants are distinguished by their horns: chevrotains have none, pronghorns have pronged horns, giraffes have stubs, deer have antlers, and bovids have heliconical horns. -phma

Kosher?[edit]

Does anyone else think the info on what is/isn't considered Kosher doesn't belong on this page? -- stewacide 05:36, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have the stuff on food taboos in here - the distinctions between what may and may not be eaten by the different religions do actually follow the taxonomy, and this is the page on which the taxonomy is being presented. The existing material on food permissions does need a bit of a rewrite, though, I'll get round to it sooner or later if no-one else does. seglea 07:11, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

But add quotation marks and/ or mention "hallal" as well at least! Wikipedia, pretending to be neutral, cannot allow such a statement which could all to easily be explained as Jewish-coloured (or coloured by any culture, to be sure), can it?--Caesarion 09:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, now that I read the line better I see that the first sentence is relativated by the following --Caesarion 10:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)again.

Whales?[edit]

The article lists hippos as closest to pigs, but according to Richard Dawkins in The Ancestor's Tale the closest relatives to the hippos are the whales (he refers to post-2000 molecular research). Given that this hypothesis is quite young I could understand it not being the accepted relationship, but does anyone know enough about it to mention it? I ask this here instead of at hippopotamus because this is where the family tree is presented. Rory 22:30, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and by now fossil evidence that supports this theory has been found, too. (Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan. Philip D. Gingerich, Munir ul Haq, Iyad S. Zalmout, Intizar Hussain Khan, and M. Sadiq Malkan. Science 21 September 2001; 293: 2239-2242.) Both DNA and fossils pointing in one direction -- seems like it's time to update the taxonomy. --Chl 16:30, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You seem more knowledgeable than I about the topic. Could you add that information to the relevant articles? Rory 17:03, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Demise of the Artiodactyla[edit]

Since the Artiodactyla as traditionally composed is paraphyletic, because it excludes cetaceans, future authors will be inclined to throw the Artiodactyla into the "laundry basket" by using the name Cetartiodactyla to include land-living artiodactyls and cetaceans. The phrase "laundry basket" means a bunch of paraphyletic or polyphyletic assemblages.

The other option is to recognize Artiodactyla as the name of the clade instead of Cetartiodactyla, since the Cetacea is just one (successful) group that arose within that clade of artiodactyls. There are precedents for both approaches. Cephal-odd 19:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

†Agriochoeridae[edit]

The family †Agriochoeridae is still unlisted, and therefore in red, but the Genus †Agriochoerus does have an entry. Is there a way to place †Agriochoeridae in blue, but redirect to †Agriochoerus? That way a user can go directly to the article without having to "google it" like I had to do. User:retrograde62 22:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.161.147 (talk)

Economic importance?[edit]

The article's introductory paragraph concludes with the phrase "...including many that are of great economic importance to humans." However, information to support this statement is absent from the article. Is this appropriate? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 13:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Cetartiodactyla[edit]

Should Cetartiodactyla officially be put in as the superorder of Artiodactyla and Cetacea? Eli Falk 18:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's wait a couple of years. In any case, let's leave anything as controversial as this out of the taxoboxes for now... Fedor 09:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: 1 yr later, I think that Cetartiodactyla should have whales and hippos and be placed in the Artiodactyls. -Walkingwith08 (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ungulate template[edit]

I removed the ungulate template for a couple reasons. 1) If we are going to use it, it has to actually be a template. A template is updated from one central page in the template space, and then changes occur on all the pages. If this template was on all the pages, and someone wanted to update it, they'd have to make the same edit dozens of times. 2) Classifying cetaceans as "ungulates" is not an uncontroversial assumption. While most agree that they are descended from ungulates, it's not accurate to call them ungulates -- whales, after all, are not hooved. If we want to include cetaceans I think the template has to be for the superorder certartiodactyls. Remember ungulates is not an exclusively taxonomic term. --JayHenry 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes happening today[edit]

I'm going to be doing quite a bit of editing of this page today, so it'll probably go through various stages of readiness. Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?[edit]

The international trade in beef for 2000 was over $30 billion and represented only 23 percent of world beef production.

Does this assert that 77% of world beef production is not traded internationally, suggesting that the total beef market is somewhere in the neighborhood of $130B? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mating and reproduction�Perissodactyl males are just like most anlmals they fight for the attention of the females.� When a male finds a female he will taste her urine to see if she is in (estrus)heat.�The female can also signal the male if she is in estrus.� Perissodactyls most often only have one baby at a time, rarely, the females ever twins.�The pregnancy is very long, from about 11 months in horses to 16 months for rhinoceroses.� The calf or foal is able to stand within moments of birth, but is very dependent on its mother.� The young stays with its mother even after it is independent, usually until it is chased off by the mother upon the birth of a new foal or calf. � In horses, the foal will enter into the herd proper, later, young stallions are often chased off and join bachelor herds.� With rhinos and tapirs, the newly weaned calf wanders away to search for new feeding grounds� —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.129.151 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just why is Artiodactyla paraphyletic?[edit]

The matter is unclear, and I cannot be the only reader confused. The claim is that the exclusion of whales renders the group paraphyletic. The labels in the cladogram File:Artiodactylamorpha.png (included in the article) don't include either Artiodactyla or whales, but there are two pictures of whales and a shaded area labeled "Artiodactylamorpha". Generally, and perhaps in this case, tacking the -morpha suffix onto a taxon name produces the name of a more inclusive taxon.

It is evident from the cladogram that Artiodactylamorpha+Perissodactyla+Hydracotherium is a monophyletic group. Perhaps it has a real name; I shall call it the APH group. Since it is the clade originating with the last common ancestor of the Artiodactylamorpha, the latter is paraphyletic if and only if it lacks some subclade of the APH group. It does lack the Perissodactyla+Hydracotherium subclade and of course subsubclades like the Rinocerotidae, so it is indeed paraphyletic. The whales, though (at least those depicted) have nothing to do with the matter.

Of course, the claim is that Artiodactyla is paraphyletic, not that Artiodactylamorpha is. If Artiodactyla is indeed included in Artiodactylamorpha, however, then the last common ancestor of the Artiodactyla is included as well, and—going by the cladogram—so is every animal descended from that ancestor. The paraphyly of Artiodactyla would need to be a consequence of the exclusion of some of these artiodactylamorph descendants. It appears from the cladogram, though, that none of these are whales.

The exclusion of whales could render Artiodactyla paraphyletic, then, only if the group is more inclusive than Artiodactylamorpha. Is it the entire set of animals shown in File:Artiodactylamorpha.png, including dogs and cats, minus some group that includes the whales?

Peter M. Brown (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's actually somewhat simpler than that: the cladogram does not show the current consensus on artiodactyl-cetacean relationships. Instead, it represents the findings of one paper, published in 2009, that challenged that consensus, and disputing that artiodactyla is paraphyletic. It was a sound enough paper at the time, but it has since been contradicted by more research, showing the cladogram in the article to be incorrect (see, for example, this 2011 paper).
So, the latest research (to the best of my knowledge) shows that the article text is correct, and the cladogram is wrong. I don't blame you for being confused, and, in my view, the image should simply be removed from the article - at best, it contradicts the text. Anaxial (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The current text reads: "The group excludes whales (Cetacea), although DNA sequence data indicate they share a common ancestor, making the group paraphyletic." This is still problematic: sharing a common ancestor with whales does not per se make the group paraphyletic. For example, Hominidae shares a common ancestor with Cetacea, but Hominidae is monophyletic. This should be clarified. 151.46.255.132 (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
And if whales are excluded they should be thrown out of the picture in the taxobox--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"double-pulley structure"[edit]

Since the lead section mentions "double-pulley structure", it would be useful if this was explained somewhere in the article, or if there was a link to an article that explained it. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Cladogram[edit]

It is not obvious what the numbers on the cladogram mean. Thanks.

The Letter J (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Horses and related[edit]

Also, are horses even-toed? The article says they're odd-toed, but the cladogram lists equus. The Letter J (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Serious problems with the layout and wording after inclusion of material from the German version[edit]

@User:Dunkleosteus77. Was this a direct machine-translation from the German article? It reads very awkwardly. And from what I can see some sourced information have been removed. If the intent was merely to expand a section of the article, it should have been inserted to the relevant sections with the rest being retained as is.

There are two subsections on Taxonomy currently, for example. The list of taxa also shouldn't be the first subsection without introductory/explanatory text. Compare with the way this was handled in the old layout.

There are also numerous weirdly phrased sentences and errors in terminology. Here's a random sampling:

  • The artiodactyls thus form a form a taxon, ie., a group which, although not a closed community of descent, is characterized by common features.
  • The porcine, which consist of the Real or Old World pigs and peccaries or peccaries.
  • The hippos, which belong to its own submission...
  • Until it was caught by User:Jonesey95, Mammalia was presented as an order, not a class. Which might be another artifact of bad translation.
  • Artiodactyls have similar characteristics between each other, in particular the construction of the limbs, which are highly customized to aquatic life. <- ???
  • The molars of porcine provide a few bumps.
  • Originally two rows of were probably teat from the armpit to the groin area available
  • These animals are marked bottom dwellers
  • From then on, they hit, due to the aquatic life, their own lineage.

etc. There are tons more.

I'm sorry, but I think it's incomprehensible at this state. If you can identify what sections you are trying to add, I think it's best to start over and revert to this version. You can then re-add the sections one by one, avoiding displacing the preexisting information and making sure the English is up to standards.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 05:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a bad idea as it would mean only people who understand german can help out. We can improve the current version without having to refer back to the German version. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION ("Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing"). It has been in this state for around a month, and it's a high-importance article. The sourced text in the original version should not have been overwritten for example. Especially since the replacement, from what I can see, are sometimes completely unsourced or actually less informative than the original (the lead for instance). A lot of the text is also already insurmountably incomprehensible, especially the technical parts. And I doubt those can be fixed by mere copyediting. A good example is this: "The molars of porcine provide a few bumps. In contrast, the camels and ruminants have bumps that are crescent-shaped melting strips reshuffled (selenodont)." I vaguely get that it refers to dental morphology (bunodonts vs. selenodonts, I guess), but like the majority of the existing sentences, it needs clarification. And since it is unsourced, you do still need to refer to the original German version anyway. There are other even more mysterious sentences that I can't even begin to make sense of (e.g. They're classified within the ruminants particularly ethnic piglets missing the omasum, otherwise show all kinds of subordination to the same building and the same digestive way.) It's unworkable at this state. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 21:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It's funny how you mentioned the lead, because I'm pretty sure I left the original one up (did I? I'm forgetting) Sorry about the copy/edit issues, it seems I've missed a lot of grammatical errors. I was also kind of hoping for some help on the copy/editing after I added it, but I didn't realise there were so many errors. I have no idea how I missed the fact that there were two Taxonomy sections (and why no one in over a month fixed that). Anyways, I'm really sorry. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 23:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Nope. The lead is also translated from German. Normally I'd help fix them too (that was my original intent when I looked it over). But after taking a look at the state it is in now, imo, it's kinda hopeless. There are simply too many errors. I really think it'd be much better to start over, and introduce the new content slowly over time. That way any translation issues can be fixed more easily and in context (though I don't know how useful we are at that as well - none of the recent contributors to the article seem to speak German, much less scientific German).-- OBSIDIANSOUL 00:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, some words, like species name, don't have an English translation, per-say, so the easiest thing to do would be to go to the German Wikipedia and search that particular world (like "Unpaarzeher", odd toed ungulates). So, is the article going to be reverted to the version before the translation? Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 02:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I recommend doing so. Since it's your edit, it'd be best if you do it. You can maybe keep a copy of the current version in a userpage somewhere and then add the info again one by one to the proper sections. Making sure it's been copyedited correctly before doing so. This is a pretty high-importance article and gets around 400 views a day. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 06:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've copy\pasted it into my sandbox, and I'll sort it out from there. When I think I'm done, I'll add a draft here on the talk page to make sure the latter of the copy/edit problems are solved. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 13:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've reverted it to the previous version. Good luck with the reintegration. Cheers. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 22:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm finished with the copy/editing problems of the Taxonomy section. Your input is appreciated. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 00:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've revised the Taxonomy section, but before I continue, could you check to make sure I'm doing it right? Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Numerous sentences still don't make sense. Too many to point out individually. You should go through the sentences one by one, rather than scanning for errors. Try avoiding following German grammar (in particular, don't follow the German capitalization rules, follow WP:NCFAUNA). Reword sentences when necessary so they can be understood, which is the most important consideration here. For example:
Differences in the construction of the stomach could imagine that the ability of rumination has developed independently between camels and ruminants; therefore, the camels are not actually counted as ruminants.
Could be rewritten as:
Differences in stomach construction indicated that rumination evolved independently between tylopods and ruminants; therefore tylopods were excluded from Ruminantia.
It depends on the original German of course. The point being, to avoid translating literally and instead translate the concept being put forward.
Some terminology errors include:
  • "Porcine" is an adjective, not a noun, and a very uncommon one at that. In most cases where it is used, just use the formal name for the taxon - Suina, and "pigs and allies" for the rest.
  • "Selenodontem" is not English. The word is selenodont, characterized by crescent-shaped cusps. Not "crescent-shaped melting strips".
  • "Hippos" similarly might be better referred to by the more formal "hippopotamuses", etc.
When a term seems unfamiliar, you should refer to existing Wikipedia articles and follow the terminology and/or descriptions that they use.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 23:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Just want to say that I hope you don't misunderstand any of this. :P I do appreciate what you're doing and acknowledge that it's very difficult to translate scientific articles. It's just that we do need to ensure that they are at least comprehensible to the readers before putting them up on the articles.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 00:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've revised it again, with the comments noted (and a lot more grammatical errors fixed). Check it out at my sandbox. Many thanks. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 02:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Due to the lack of comments in around a month's time, I'll repost the German version again (but I've re-added the better and more detailed parts of the English version, e.g, the Diet and feeding section into the Digestive system section). If the copyediting problems are still very high and unintelligible (like the sentences above), do not hesitate to take it down, but if there are just minor copyediting problems left, just fix it. I'm pretty sure there's still technical jargon (like astragalus) and feel free to change those if you feel it should be. Thank you, and again, if copyediting problems are still still present, do not hesitate to take it down.

Haircut[edit]

I've just done a severe trim of the lead. There should have not been stuff in there which wasn't summary of similar in the body, so I don't believe anything is lost - and it's certainly more readable. Snori (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Horns and antlers[edit]

Please check the accuracy of my change. The previous "end arms" version was very odd, but I am no specialist, so may have misinterpreted Pecora. Snori (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Taxoboxes for even-toed ungulates and whales[edit]

I think we need a single approach to handle all taxoboxes of even-toed ungulates and whales. Looking at a few articles, I've seen the following options:

Refer to order Artiodactyla as including a suborder Whippomorpha, which in turn has an infraorder Cetacea (whales) - for example, Baleen whale
Refer to order Artiodactyla as a paraphyletic group, which excludes whales; Cetacea is an other order - for example, Rorqual
Use the order name Cetartiodactyla; Cetacea is an unranked clade in this group - for example, Blue whale

I think we should move towards a more consistent standard for all articles referring to animals from this clade. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should try to be consistent. If either Whippomorpha or Cetartiodactyla has become generally accepted within the scientific community we should use that. If not we should use Artiodactyla as a paraphyletic group. Rlendog (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
We should only use natural groups in the taxoboxes. Otherwise we're misleading the reader into believing an invalid group is valid. FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@FunkMonk:We use paraphyletic groups elsewhere (e.g Reptilia), we just mark them as paraphyletic (see Template:Automatic taxobox/doc/advanced#Paraphyly). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
There are newer, monophyletic definitions of Reptilia, as our article states. So the taxobox disclaimer there seems to be inadequte... We should use newer, monophyletic definitions where possible. FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Artiodactyla and Cetartiodactyla are synonyms, so Order Cetartiodactyla, Suborder Whippomorpha, Infraorder Cetacea is a valid option   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Distribution and Habitat[edit]

The article appears to state that there are no even-toed ungulates native to North America, which is so absurd I feel I must be missing something. Am I missing something? Nstgtr42 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It says (and Bison clearly contradicts this) that there are currently no even-toed ungulates native to North America, although there used to be. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)