Talk:Carnassial

Dentistry Low‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animal anatomy Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Picture

I want to see a picture! Brainmuncher 03:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I'm going to edit this page as part of project I'm undertaking for university coursework. Here is a link outlining the project...

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. Further details are available here.

Thanks, Cbrookes92 (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Furthermore, the evolutionary design behind having only one carnassial pair is to allow for easier remodelling of the animal's dentition through natural selection, if the need to do so arises.

Really? There is no pre-planning in Darwinian evolution, so this wording is VERY suspect Snori (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree. I'll remove this polypompholyx (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fossil record" and origin of carnivorans

The fossil record indicates the presence of carnassial teeth 50 million years ago, implying that Carnivora family members descend from a common ancestor.

The foregoing statement (currently in the article) is not supported by the source (or indeed facts). The source, from the University of Edinburgh doesn't say when the first carnivoran carnassial was present, nor that carnivorans arose at that time. It merely says that carnivorans "expanded" at that time, which I guess means there was a major radiation of carnivorans at that time. (Tne page its not one of UoE's finest moments.) In any event, carnivorans existed well before 50 mya. And so did carnassial teeth in carnivorans and elsewhere.

So, unless there is a groundswell to the contrary, I intend to delete this sourced statement in my next revision of this article. AnthroMimus (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]