|Odd-toed ungulate has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Mammals||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
So we know that horses and brontotheres are hippomorphs, while tapirs and rhinos are ceratomorphs... but where do chalicotheres and hyracodonts fit in? 22.214.171.124 00:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hyracodonts and chalicotheres were ceratomorphs, also. Hyracodonts are a family of rhinoceros, and the chalicotheres may have been related to tapirs.--Mr Fink 03:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
THANK YOU :)
When first saw the page, I wanted to edit it to make it longer and more info. But as look at the page, just about say someone edit my work, thank you for does who made my work better! From User:4444hhhh
According to the "Taxony" section of the article, under Ceratomorpha, the article states: "Ceratomorpha are odd-toed ungulates that have several functional toes and are heavier than freddie".
I feel this statement needs clarification, at least.
Throughout the article, there is no other mention of "freddie;" which leads me to believe that "heavier than freddie" is a colloquial expression.
Not only should expressions not be included in encyclopedia entries, but this one seems to be highly regional.
This statement should be clarified, or rewritten.
I'm going to avoid edit warring over this, but there have been a number of edits made recently that (aside from violating the Manual of Style) are, to my mind, quite unnecessary. Firstly, to my mind, there is no need to define the meaning of the term "19th century", or any other century, in an article such as this. This is not done at other articles and I can see no reason for doing it here; it simply interrupts the flow of the text, and sounds rather condescending.
Secondly, I can see no reason for adding the word "theorised" in front of the word "Evolution" in the section header. This is, to my mind, misleading - it may lead people to believe that the evolution of the group is somehow in more doubt than it actually is. Remember, a scientific theory is something that had been demonstrated repeatedly; it is not the same as the common meaning of the word - which is akin to the scientific hypothesis, and adding this qualifier to the header may imply the latter. Of course, the specifics may be in doubt, and the article already makes it clear where this is the case, but we don't want to promote fringe theories in an article on biology and taxonomy, even by implication. This is the same principle that is applied at most similar articles on Wikipedia, and I can see compelling reason why this specific one should be different. Anaxial (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the name Perissodactyla, near the top the article states that "perissos" means "abundant/excessive," but farther down the article says it means "uneven". Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambo of New Albany (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Sambo of New Albany (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- All on-line references I can find (such as this one) seem to confirm that perissos translates to 'abundant'/'excessive'. I've no idea where the translation 'uneven' came from, perhaps it's just a transferred meaning, but it is all over the internet. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- They have three toes on the hindfeet (picture on the right of that image). Besides, as explained in the article, while the perissodactyl foot is, to some degree, mesaxonic, it doesn't necessarily have an odd number of toes - despite the common name of the group. Anaxial (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Extinction of Equus ferus?
The article currently states that the species Equus ferus is extinct. According to that article "The wild horse (Equus ferus)... includes as subspecies the modern domesticated horse (Equus ferus caballus) as well as... the endangered Przewalski's horse (Equus ferus przewalskii)." But, if the species, as a whole, is extinct, then surely, by definition, its subspecies would have to also be extinct? If, as stated unequivocally (or so it seems to me) in both this article, and that on the wild horse, both domesticated horses and Przewalski's horses are types of wild horse, then surely "wild horses" (in the sense used in the article) aren't extinct either? Especially since Przewalski's horse, while it may have only existed in captivity at one point, was never domesticated. One solution might be to change the name "wild horse" for E. ferus both in this article, and at the specific one if it's causing confusion, but, either way, I don't see how Equus ferus as a whole can be extinct, if two of its subspecies aren't. Furthermore, the Equus ferus article says that the species is not extinct, and this seems to be supported by the IUCN Red List, which, again, claims that Przewaski's horse is a subspecies (albeit the only living one) of "Asian wild horse". Anaxial (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Since the other party in this dispute hasn't responded with a week, and there have been no contrary opinions from anyone else, I've changed the listing to what seem (to me) to be supported by the sources. Anaxial (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Common ancestor - early reports
Scientists: Pig-sized animal found in India was common ancestor for horses, rhinos. This has yet to become scientific consensus, but it's something to keep an eye on. -- Beland (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)