Talk:Boreoeutheria

Out of date?

Don't more recent studies suggest 65 million years ago rather than the 100 to 80 million of the article. https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/common-ancestor-of-all-mammals-revealed 105.186.175.200 (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is there a specific reason why the European Mole is pictured? --Xact (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, someone liked the picture. Ucucha 04:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Encompassing humans?

Would that be a relevant addition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFoiblesse (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote that the first paragraph should explicitly indicate that humans fall within this clade, and the word "humans" should be used. I recognize that this article is fairly esoteric and not intro-level, so I will not make the edit myself, but I think a substantial number of readers will not realize that supraprimates includes humans, especially because they may not know what "supra" means. I think almost any article about a clade that includes humans should mention that it includes humans.Fluoborate (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insectivora

Insectivora is defunct. Please replace it with the Boroeutherian Insectivoran orders. 92.29.202.180 (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"external testicles"

not the aquatic ones.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems plausible, but I still can't find any references that verify this. Jarble (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also - with regards to the secondary function of external testicles. The reference cited for it's purpose in stimulating the clitoris is talking about humans. I could easily imagine fitness benefits there throughout primates, where female orgasm occurs, but how broad, exactly, is the scope of this claim? Can stimulation of the clitoris provide fitness benefits other than improving the fecundity of a mate (eg, receprocation by that mate, improved probability of being selected by female mate choice)? Common sex positions ("doggystyle") in most mammals appear consistent with this finding in humans, but has testicle-clitoris contact itself been shown to be taxonomicly widespread?

Regardless of the scope or our knowledge thereof, I see room for improvement to the general epistemology of the article. If the scope is known to include all Boreoeutheria, or some broader group, wouldn't it be worth citing evidence? If the scope is known to be limited to a narrow subset thereof, shouldn't that scope be stated in the article to avoid suggesting generality? And finally if scope is unknown, should not the controversy or shortage of research to that ends be noted somewhere, so that readers understand the limits of the knowledge with which they have been imbued? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.156.51 (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]