Talk:Carnivora/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Carnivora. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Nearly all others mammalians are carnivora?!

..."nearly all others eat meat as their primary diet item: some (like the cat family) almost exclusively, others (like the..." Where are horses, sheeps, bulls, buffalos... etc? Pérez 20:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The article refers to members of the Carnivora, not all mammals. Horses, sheep, etc., are not members of the Carnivora. Graham 23:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

It's obviously not possible to put a full list in the taxobox, so I've chopped it to reduce the width.

The alternative would be to keep the scientific names in the box, and give a fuller list outside. jimfbleak 16:25 25 May 2003 (UTC)

As of right now, as far as I can tell... there's some sort of vandalism on this page. I think this may be a server issue. Someone delete this when it doesn't apply, but....--Bic1313 17:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Caniformia?

why are usidae (bears) put in the group of caniformia? Both my current and ex science teachers agree that is does not fall into either of the groups.

There are four primary monophyletic clades within the extant Caniformia group: Canidae, Ursidae, Pinnipedia, and Musteloidea. The current phylogeny tree, after Wyss & Flynn, 1993, McKenna & Bell, 1997, Alroy, 2002, Wesley-Hunt & Flynn, 2005, and Wesley-Hunt & Werdelin, 2005 is:

Caniformia Kretzoi, 1943 (dog-like carnivores; koiramaiset petoeläimet):

  |--+-- †‘Miacis’ cognitus
  |  `-- †Amphicyonidae Trouessart, 1885 (dorbears; koirakarhut)
  `--+-- Canidae Gray, 1821 [Cynoidea:]
     `--+-- †Zodiolestes diamonelixensis
        `--+-- Pinnipedimorpha Berta, 1991 [Pinnipedia sensu lato] (seals; eväjalkaiset petoeläimet)
           `--+-- Mustelidae (weasels; näädät)
              `--+-- Procyonidae (half-bears, raccoons; puolikarhut)
                 `--+-- Ailuridae Gray, 1843 [Procyonidae: Simocyoninae + Ailurinae] (golden pandas; pikkupandat)
                    `--o Ursoidea Flower, 1869 (bear-like carnivores; karhunsukuiset petoeläimet)
                       `-- Ursidae Fisher de Waldheim, 1817 non? Gray, 1825 sensu McKenna & Bell, 1997 [Ursinae sensu 
                                      Ginsburg & Morales, 1998 and  Astibia, Morales & Ginsburg, 2000] (bears; karhut)

Valich 05:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Suborders

I am rather dubious of the monophyletic monomania that often appears on wikipedia. If we are to use the normal hierarchic taxonomic groupings at all (which we obviously are), we have to accept that there will be paraphyletic groups. As such, I don't see why grouping Fissipedia and Pinnipedia as separate suborders of Carnivora is any more problematic than grouping Aves as a separate class of Vertebrata from Reptilia, which we do. On my understanding of reptilia, the current grouping of Carnivora would be analogous to us creating one class consisting of Aves and most of the reptiles, and a separate class for turtles. Which we do not do. The Pinnipeds are still considered, so far as I am aware, a monophyletic group which is quite morphologically distinct from the other members of Carnivora. I fail to understand why the three Pinniped families should simply all be listed together as families of "Caniformia" as though they are no more closely related to one another than they are to dogs or bears. john k 02:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Anybody out there? It's been months and months since I wrote this, and no response. This is quite irksome. john k 21:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Wiki Article Pinnipeds, with cited reference, "Pinnipeds appear to have diverged from their bear-like ancestors during the Latest Oligocene. The earliest fossil pinniped that has been found is Enaliarctos, which lived 24–22 million years ago, at the boundary between the Oligocene and Miocene periods. DNA evidence suggests that all modern pinnipeds descend from a common ancestor that lived sometime in the earliest Miocene, possibly an Enaliarctos-like mammal." Valich 05:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Red panda?

I thought red panda was Ursidae??--Sonjaaa 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"The progenitors of raccoons and bears split during the Oligocene (24-38 mya), and within 10 million years the red panda lineage diverged from the raccoon lineage. In the Miocene (5-23 mya), there were three major radiations among the bears, the earliest line leading to the giant panda, the second to the South American spectacled bear, and the last to the six other bear species." Schaller, George B. (1993). “The Panda is a Panda,” an excerpt from The Last Panda. University of Chicago Press. Online at: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/736296.html. Red Pandas split from the raccoon lineage: current Family Procyonidae, Superfamily Musteloidea. Giant Panda split from Ursidae. Musteloidea and Ursidae both evolved from Caniformia but split from the lineage at different times (different species). Valich 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Point of Confusion re: Arctoidea

"The pinnipeds form a clade with the bears to form the Arctoidea superfamily. The arctoids form a clade that includes another superfamily ... the Musteloidea."

This seems to be saying that one superfamily is nested in another, which couldn't be.

Understandable because Flynn's abstract is kind of muddled as well: "We further have determined the relative positions of the major lineages within the Caniformia, which previous studies could not resolve, including the first robust support for the phylogenetic position of marine carnivorans (Pinnipedia) within the Arctoidea (as the sister-group to musteloids [sensu lato], with ursids as their sister group)."

But if you look at the graphic in the article, it's clear that the Pinnipedia, Musteloidea and the ursids are all included in Arctoidea. If Pinnipedia and Musteloidea are superfamilies, than Arctoidea would have to be a higher-level taxon.

In Flynn's gram Pinnipedimorpha (pinnipeds) and Ursoidea (bears) form two clades that comprise Ursida. Ursida and Mustelida form Arctoidae. Ursida is a sister group to Mustelida. The graphic in the article needs to be rewritten and regrouped:

Arctoidea:

  |-- Mustelida
  |  |?- †Mustelavus priscus
  |  |--+-- Procyonidae (half-bears, raccoons; puolikarhut)
  |  |  `-- Ailuridae Gray, 1843 [Procyonidae: Simocyoninae+Ailurinae] (golden pandas; pikkupandat)
  |  `--+-- †Bavarictis gaimersheimensis
  |     |-- †Mustelictis
  |     `--+-- †Pseudobassaris riggsi
  |        `--+-- †Plesictis [Mustelavus]
  |           |  `-- †“Plesictis” julieni sicaulensis Viret, 1929
  |           `--+-- †Oligobuninae
  |              |  |-- †Promartes olcotti
  |              |  |-- †Potamotherium valletoni
  |              |  `-- †Oligobunis crassivultus
  |              `-- Mustelidae (weasels; näädät)
  `-- Ursida Tedford, 1976
     |-- †Amphicticeps Matthew & Granger, 1924
     |  |-- †A. shackelfordi Matthew & Granger, 1924
     |  |-- †A. durog Wang, McKenna & Dashzeveg, 2005
     |  `-- †A. makhchinus Wang, McKenna & Dashzeveg, 2005
     |?- †Adracon
     |?- †Plesiocyon
     |?-+-- †Nothocyon geismarianus (Cope, 1878) Matthew, 1899
     |  |-- †Subparictis Clark & Guensburg, 1972 sensu Wang & Tedford, 1992
     |  |  `-- †S. dakotensis
     |  `-- †Parictis Scott, 1893
     |     `-- †P. primaevus Scott, 1893
     |?- †Adelpharctos
     |?- †Amphicynodon [Cynodon, Paracynodon]
     |  `-- †A. teilhardi Matthew & Granger, 1924
     |?- †Drassonax
     |?- †Pachyconodon
     |?- †Kolponomos
     |?- †Allocyon
     |-- Pinnipedimorpha Berta, 1991 [Pinnipedia sensu lato] (seals; eväjalkaiset petoeläimet)
     `-- Ursoidea Fisher de Waldheim, 1817 (Flower, 1869) (bear-like carnivores; karhunsukuiset petoeläimet)

After Wyss & Flynn, 1993, McKenna & Bell, 1997 and Ginsburg & Morales, 1998: http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Synapsida/Eutheria/Carnivora/Arctoidea/Arctoidea.htm#Pinnipedimorpha

Valich 06:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Suborders of Carnivora

I don't believe the suborders shown are generally accepted. While I am no expert, I have done some reading and I believe the generally accepted classification uses the suborders Arctoidea (or Caniformia) and Aeluroidea (or Feliformia). This classification reflects common ancestry rather than obvious physical similarities. The pinnipeds are contained within the Arctoidea, and apparently share a common ancestor with bears.

Hello, is this article only for extant species/families, or can I add extinct taxa? I would agree with the comment above incidentally, I always used arctoidea & aeluroidea. Amphicyonid

The Arctoidea clade does not include Canidae, therefore it cannot be considered equal in status to Caniformia. Caniformia split into Canidae and Arctoidea 37-40 mya; then, after Ursidae split off, Pinnipedia and Musteloidea split. Pinniped fossils go back 25-27 mya. Ursidae was the first family to split from the Arctoidea lineage, so yes they do share a common ancestry. Valich 03:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Updating Carnivora, starting with Feliformia

I will be updating the Carnivora taxa articles shortly, to match the listing in MSW3. I have previously updated many of the other mammalian orders in this way. However, I see there is plenty of disagreement in the taxonomy. I will try to use a gentle touch in editing the articles. However I thought it prudent to post here my intentions. You can also see the MSW3 taxonomy at User:UtherSRG/Carnivora. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of Arctoidea elevates the status of Ursidae (the first to branch off). Ursidae, Pinnipedia and Musteloidae all evolved from Arctoidea. See cladogram on page 2 in Finarelli, John A. 2006 "Estimation of Endocranial Volume Through the Use of External Skull Measures in the Carnivora (Mammalia)." Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 87(5) pp. 1027-1036. online at: http://home.uchicago.edu/~johnf/pdf/Finarelli_JMamm_2006.pdf Any thoughts on how to list Carnivomorpha, the Superfamily Miacidae, and the ancestral Parent Infraorder Miacoidea, with Carnivora? Valich 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, no thoughts. I should have said I'm updating the taxonomy for families down to species. MSW3 doesn't deal much with how the families are related. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you left Arctoidea in: it helps clarify the phylogeny relations, and also addresses a couple of the above discussion concerns. Are you thinking about adding species here? There's thousands in the MSW3 - too cluttered. What do you think about replacing Family Miacidae with Superfamíly Miacoidea instead? The Portugese Wiki has it like this:*** Superfamíly †Miacoidea (34-64 Ma)****Family †Miacidae**** Family †Viverravidae Valich 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"false sabre-tooths"

Wouldn't be more appropriate to call them "false sabre-tooth cats"? Since they do have "legitimate" sabre teeth, but they're not cats, though they look like? --Extremophile 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. They don't have false sabre-tooths.....their tooths are real enough. They are false sabre-tooth cats. Sounds logical to me (hmm that sounds like a Vulcan..;))DaMatriX 00:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The List

I the list which is mention at the "See Also" section, were the list is red, I think I'll start the list. The reason why I'm telling this because we need to the world the list and also I don't want ton be acused. User:4444hhhh

I've redirected it to the existing list of carnivores.... within the list of placental mammals. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made a different page, if it's thats find with you. User:4444hhhh

It's not. No need to have to keep both pages up to date. Deleted your page, reverted your change to this one. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but, the palcental mammal list also includes other mammal orders, that's why I think it should be seprated. And why did you did that! I have work hard on that list, and the Cetcean has its own list, so are you going to deleted it also, I don't think so! User:4444hhhh

You shouldn't have created it in the first place. I'll have to look at the Cetacean list, and perhaps redirect it, too. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah... now that I've refreshed my memory and visited the Cetacean page.... no. It is quite fine as it is way more than just a list. But I think there are way too many Carnivora species for such a page. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen, after thinking about it, I'm sorry, will you forgive me? Me acting like a big jerk, I just want the page to be great. Sorry.User:4444hhhh

Extinct families

I've added two extinct families to the family list. The first is the commonly recognised Enaliarctidae, a family of primitive Pinnipeds. Second is the (somewhat disputed) family Hemicyonidae, which is more and more considered a seperate family closely related to bears, instead of being true bears (Ursidae). To my knowledge, these were the only Carnivora families (extinct or extant) that were missing in this article. So, the family (phylogenetic) list is now complete. DaMatriX 22:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Screwed up cladogram

In an attempt to edit the cladogram, reflecting the recent changes, I managed to screw things up completely. I'm full of frustration right now: after more than an hour of editting I just can't find the mechanism behind the nice cladogram at the main page. It looks real simple, but every time I edit something, the whole thing screws up. Aaarghhh!!! Can comeone PLEASE fix the cladogram for me, before I'm going to throw my keyboard through my monitor?

(The bottleneck is the Pinnepedia clade) DaMatriX 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you need done? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have what you want. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, UtherSRG! DaMatriX 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Superfamily issues

The user 75.30.150.158 stated: "by ICZN rules a sueprfamily must have an eponymous type family, so Arctoidea and Pinnipedia cannot be superfamilies"

Essentialy he's right, so Arctoidea and other clades of equal rank will be treated as infraorders (at least for the moment). However, in the case of the Pinnipedia I think the name Pinnipedia is still widely used, in order to retain some of the essence of the former suborder - despite the fact that the naming is not according to the rules that should be used for superfamilies. DaMatriX 16:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Classification section

In the current version of the taxonomy of the Carnivora, the extant families all list the present genus- and species-level diversity, while the extinct families list their approximate durations in the fossil record. I would recommend that we be consistent here: put in the lineage duration for each of the extant families, or put the approximate genus/species diversity for each of the extinct families, or better yet, do both! As it is now, the listed taxonomy serves each of these two purposes (duration and diversity) only partially. I would be happy to do some work on this, but if others already have these data, I don't want to waste the effort. Tomwithanh 03:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's standard to list the species. They are fully known. It's not standard to do anything else. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I am not sure how this response addresses the issues I raised. Simply put, the status quo is not as good as it could be, so in the end I was asking if others had the data and would be willing to edit the article appropriately, or if I should do that work. Alternatively, since it's not standard to do anything else, why are the fossil durations listed? And why aren't the species listed for the fossil families? Tomwithanh 03:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

pinnipeds are caniforms, yes?

This Distinguishing Features section refers to Pinnipedia first as a suborder and then as a superfamily. Which is correct? The Pinniped page says "The pinnipeds now fall within the suborder Caniformia and comprise the families Odobenidae (walruses), Otariidae (eared seals, including sea lions and fur seals), and Phocidae (true seals)." Leadwind 04:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Miacidae and Viverravidae are not Carnivora

These are Carnivoramorpha but are definitely not Carnivora. Reference to these both need to be removed from the Phylogeny and Classification sections as well as the Phylogenetic Tree. On the Phylogenetic Tree, Miacidae should be replaced with the Species 'Miacis cognitus' in the same position that Miacidae is at right now, i.e., alongside and above Amphicyonidae. Miacis cognitus is a Carnivora, but it is not a Miacid, although it seems firmly embedded near a sister relation to the Canidae subfamily species Hesperocyon as a Carnivora. 'Miacis parvivorus' and 'Miacis cf. M sylvestris' are, however, Miacoidea Miacids, and this distinction needs to be made in the Miacis article. Miacis, therefore, probably represents the transition from Miacoidea to Carnivora. Tapocyon (monophyletic) is also definitely not a Carnivora although the article here states that it "may be." Wesley-Hunt and Werdelin's analyses (see below), involving 100 character traits that define exactly what a Carnivora is and is not, also puts Nimravidae outside of Carnivora, although this is exclusion should be confirmed with additional studies. If you have any question about this I refer you to the following articles which I believe are cited in the Wiki Canidae article too. The first article contains an excellent phylogenetic tree that we should use, in part, here:

Wesley-Hunt, Gina D. and John J. Flynn. (2005). "Phylogeny of the Carnivora: Basal Relationships Among the Carnivoramorphans, and Assessment of the Position of 'Miacoidae' Relative to Carnivora." Journal of Systematic Paleontology. 3(1): 1-28.

Wesley-Hunt, Gina D. and Lars Werdelin. (2005). "Basicranial Morphology and Phylogenetic Position of the Upper Eocene Carnivoramorphan Quercygale." Acta Paleontol. Pol. 50(4): 837-846.

I have confirmed the sister group relationship between Canidae and Arctoidea through email correspondence with Dr. Gina Wesley-Hunt, along with 'Miacis cognitus' and Amphicyonidae as being earlier outgroups of Carnivora, but there is uncertainty about the closeness of their respective relationships with Ursidae. I will let this discussion ride before I make any changes. Keep in mind also that there is a big difference between a carnivore and a Carnivora. The "oldest carnivores" were probably early Synapsids that evolved over 250 million years ago: not Miacidae and Viverravidae as this article states now. Then there were carnivorous Cynodonts after that, commonly referred to as "Dog-teeth." The Phylogeny section needs to be cleaned up. Valich 05:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Viverrevidae and Miacidae. If you can find an online version of the tree from Wesley-Hunt and Flynn, I'll update the article. Meanwhile, let it ride. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, doesn't carnivory date back much further than than the earliest synapsids? Surely it must have arisen no later than the Cambrian Period, when there lived predatory arthropods able to swallow prey whole. But perhaps you're using "carnivore" in a more restricted sense?

Cephal-odd 18:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Miacids and viverravids were once considered carnivorans, but the concept of Carnivora has changed. With the advent of cladistic analyses, Carnivora was restricted to the crown group, which usually means the descendants of the last common ancestor of all extant members of the group. A new name was needed for the larger clade that includes miacids and viverravids, hence Carnivoramorpha. Carnivoramorpha isn't technically a crown clade in the sense that Carnivora is.

Cephal-odd 19:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason:

The reason I edited out pinnipeds is because I read off of an animal book that Pinnipeds (such as seals, sea lions, and walruses) actually form their own order, but they did evolve from bears, though they are more aquatic than the group where carnivores are in, and their order's name means "finned feet" which their relatives, the bears in the order of carnivora do not have, and I also think they should be of a separate order, too, but they are almost completely carnivorous, I can agree with that. The Winged Yoshi

"Something you think you recall from a book" is far from a good citation. Yes, the pinnipeds make up a monophyletic grouping, but that grouping is within the Carnivora order. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

UtherSRG is correct, in case you need a second opinion. We're talking phylogeny here. In the distant past there was a vegetarian crocodile, but it was still a crocodile. Speciate 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then, I'll keep pinnipeds in there as caniforms. The Winged Yoshi

Weasels

Weasels are actually more omnivorous, not completely carnivorous, that's why I edited it to say they are omnivores, not carnivores, I read that from a very organized animal book. The Winged Yoshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Winged Yoshi (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, just because that's what you think is true, doesn't mean it is, or that it is correct for the article. The only acceptable edits are ones that are supported by verifiable sources with a citation. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Classification/Cladogram

I've been trying to update the Feliformia a bit by adding superfamilies and other clades between the suborder and family levels. The Caniformia already has this, because the phylogeny of this suborder has been well established in the last few years. The exact phylogeny of the Feliformia is, however, still in doubt. Nonetheless I decided that in the case of the Feliformia, some form of classification between that of suborder and family is necessary, in order to keep things clear to the reader. However, there should be a note in the article that the exact phylogeny of the Feliformia is still not conclusively established.

So, I decided to follow the phylogeny that is based on the most recent data. As such, several things has been altered. The first thing is the exact classificaton of animals that are truely cat-like: the Nimravidae has now become the Feliform outgroup, the Barbourofelidae are given their own family related to cats and the Prionodontidae are taken out of Viverridae and are also placed close to the cats. Barbourofelidae, Prionodontidae and Felidae thus form a monophyletic group known as Feloidea. As a result, all other (extant) families form a monophyletic group is well, which is known as Viverroidea. Within the Viverroidea there is another clade that excludes the Viverrids, but includes the mongoose- and hyena-like animals. I could not find the name of this clade, so I decided to name it Herpestoidea, because the Herpestidae form the crown-group (if I understand the rules of naming superfamilies correctly).

I'm sorry I post this comment a few days after I altered the article. If everyone agrees with the changes, can the Cladogram at the bottem of the article be altered with the edits that are outlined above?

Don't mind my English, it's not my native tongue. DaMatriX 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely this classification makes things less clear for the reader, especially as it is not followed in other articles. john k (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fused wrist bones.

Missing from the presentation is the diagnostic test for Carnivora: three fused bones in the wrist. This characterizes all the Carnivora and distinguishes them from progenitors and relatives. I'll find the documentary support.Uniquerman (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[[Animal Species and Their Evolution], A. J. Cain, 1960 ed., Harper Torchbooks. Originally published by the Hutchison University Library, 1954. pp. 20-25. A discussion not only of classification theory but also of the mechanics of taxonomy for the researcher. It will dispel any idea anybody has that the new DNA database will solve all taxonomic ambiguity, in addition.Uniquerman (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Asiatic Linsangs: idaes or inaes?

There are two higher level orders for Prionodons reported - as a subfamily of Viverridae in the Viverridae page (Prionodontinae), and a family sister to Felidae/Barborofelids in the Carnivora phylogeny (Prionodontidae). It appears to be a leftover from a previous edit above

The actual article for A.Linsangs currently sits in as a subfamily of Viverridae, but citation suggests that there is mounting evidence that A.Linsangs should be sister to Felidae. The current link is broke, but a copy of the publication appears to be here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1691530.

I'm far from experienced in current classification, so I'm asking before tearing up the three pages :V Taikamiya (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead Photo

Although the picture of the Jaguar is nice, I think a Polar bear pic would probably be better since the Polar bear is the largest carnivore on land —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not; Kodiak bears are larger. Furthermore, I think the lead photo should be of a species that is typical of the group as a whole. Although completely "typical" species, of course, do not exist, choosing one of the largest species there are for the lead image is not the best way to go. Ucucha 03:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Carnivora has teeth and claws? Elephant seal?

According to first paragraph, carnivores have teeth and claws. I don't believe the elephant seal has claws. Look into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.180.3 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Number of Species

At present, the number of species shown for certain families on this page does not agree with the numbers mentioned in the wiki pages for those families. As I commented on the 'Felide' Talk Page, it would be nice it we could have an agreed authoritive source, but lacking one, we should at least ensure consistency in our articles.

I have summarised differences below:

Family No. of species (genera) per Comment

          'Carnivora'  Family Article

Felidae 40 (14) 41 (?) Yet Felidae page only lists 40 species (but 15 genera)! Hyaenidae 4 (4) 4 (3) Brown Hyena wiki mentions it had been in a different

                                       genus from the Striped Hyena.

Viverridae 35 (15) c. 30 Yet Viverridae page lists 36 species (and 14 genera)! Eupleridae 8 (7) 10 (7) Herpestidae 33 (14) 33 (14) Yet Herpestidae page lists 34 species! Mephitidae 10 (4) 12 (4) Otariidae 14 (7) 16 (7) The wiki article on the Japanese Sea Lion says it was

                                       extinct by 1960; yet it is still seems to be included
                                       in the count on the Otariidae page!

Phocidae 19 (9) Phocidae page has 19 Species (but 13 Genera, although 3

                                       were 'recently' created). Also the Caribbean Monk Seal
                                       was extinct by 1950, yet still included in the list.

Canidae 37 (10) Canidae page lists, which inc. the Cozumel Fox and

                                       Falklands Wolf, has 36 species (and 13 genera).

Mustelidae 55 (24) Mustelidae page lists 57 species, inc. the extinct Sea

                                       Mink (+ 22 genera).

Procyonidae 19 (6) Procyonidae page only lists 15 species (but still 6

                                       genera)!

Glevum (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Delayed implantation time too long

It says, in the section “Distinguishing features” #“Reproductive system”, that “The average gestation period lies between 50 and 115 days, although the ursids and mustelids have delayed implantation, thus extending the gestation period six to 9 months beyond the normal period.” The delayed implantation time in bears must be alot less than 6 months, because the total gestation is about 7 to 8 months, and one would expect a long gestation in big mammals such as bears (humans, which are considerably smaller than grizzly bears, have a long gestation, almost 9 months).--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The only sources I've been able to check say that delayed implantation in bears does, indeed, last 6 months, with birth about 2 months after that. If you have a source to the contrary, that would obviously be very useful. Anaxial (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Source for cladogram?

The source for the Carnivoran cladogram is not clear. Is it Wilson & Mittermeier, 2009 (as in the Classification), or another source? Also, this article is full of vague words like "recent", which should be always be avoided in an ongoing encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carnivora. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051229185642/http://home.uchicago.edu:80/~johnf/pdf/Flynn_etal_2005.pdf to http://home.uchicago.edu/~johnf/pdf/Flynn_etal_2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Splitting hairs: carnivore vs. carnivoran

In the sentence: "The jaw joint in carnivores tends to lie within the plane of tooth occlusion, an arrangement that further emphasizes shearing", should "carnivores" be replaced with carnivorans? The sentence appears to be discussing members of the order, not carnivores in general, and I'm assuming this is true of non-carnivorous carnivorans as well. Are the meanings of these words not set-in-stone enough to rely on them in this way? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been searching for the etymology of the word carnivoran and I have been unable to find it. I think someone has manufactured the word and I don't believe it to be of general use. In other languages, such as Spanish or Portuguese, there is no equivalent and nobody has problems with the little bit of ambiguity that might arise from using the word carnívora for animals that eat meat and "Carnivora" for the Order of Mammalia. To me, the word is superfluous and will only generate confusion among non-English speakers (and English speakers) and I cannot find a dictionary with the word - I've looked through Mirriam-Webster, Oxford and others and on-line searching, and books on mammals. Since the word is so hard to come by, I recommend removing it. Jjroper (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Pangolins

Could someone with a better grasp of phylogenetic tree coding add Pangolins as an outgroup for the cladogram? Mariomassone (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

	Cetartiodactyla

	Perissodactyla

Ferae

	Pholidota

	Carnivora

I'm not sure that that cladogram needs more additions. I think it needs some trimming. The five extinct species of Stenogale in polytomy is unnecessary, as are the extinct species of uncertain placement. Some references would be another improvement.

What a lot of taxon articles have is a cladogram for internal relationships and another showing external relationships. A small cladogram showing Carnivora, Pholidota and other orders in Laurasiatheria might be an appropriate addition (e.g. like the one on the right).

I can make the changes either way if there is consensus here. Jts1882 | talk 14:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

These are both good points. I think the addition of an "outer" cladogram would be helpful for context. Trimming the Stenogale species also seems appropriate (all the more so since we don't even have a genus article yet - will have a look at that.) The incertae sedis genera I would actually leave in there, as the cladogram makes the placement uncertainty (Feliformia but where?) more readily apparent than the list can do. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the species for the fossil genera. The genus is more than enough for an article on the whole order. I've left the incertae sedis genera. There is very little on these genera. Fossilworks has them in Felidae after Carroll (1988), who only lists them in an appendix on classification at the end of his book (they aren't mentioned in the text). McKenna & Bell (1997) places them basal in Feliformia, just before Viverravidae, which are now placed outside crown Carnivora. Personally I favour removing them from this article as its uncertain if they belong within the scope of the taxon and there is no article on either. Jts1882 | talk 10:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivoramorpha#Phylogenetic_tree The Explaner (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Hemicyon white background.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Unreferenced maintenance template

Hi. I removed the maintenance template because inline references are not required, and because the info in the section was not seriously in doubt. Warning templates should be used sparingly to alert readers to serious problems, not to talk about that fact that a section could have more inline references. That sort of concern can and should be addressed on the talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 15:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Anaxial and Jehochman: I wish this reference template had been kept: it's one of the longest sections in the article, and it contains a large number of unverified statements. Jarble (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree (having already attempted to do so once). Do we now have a consensus to restore it, or are there further objections? Anaxial (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anaxial and Jehochman: There have been no replies to this discussion in the last 10 days, so I have restored the maintenance template. Jarble (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

please attempt to fix the article. If you make a good faith attempt and still have serious doubts, then you can tag it as a warning to readers. I see no seriously dubious statements so I am pulling the tags. Please specify what statements you think are dubious. Inline references aren't magic. Sprinkling references on an article does not make it more accurate unless the refernces are to reliable sources and the writer actually follows what the source says. Jehochman ^Talk 04:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman and Anaxial: According to Wikipedia's Verifiability policy: All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.. Jarble (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please list specifically what you are challenging and specifically why you think it is doubtful. If there is bad stuff in there, let's get rid of it. Jehochman ^Talk 22:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the following statements from the first four paragraphs need citations, as a minimum. Remember, the policy is that statements should be verifiable, not necessarily that they simply be true. One could, of course, put a ^{[citation needed]} next to each, but a single maintenance template is, to my mind, less obstructive, given the number:

Carnassials are most highly developed in the Felidae and the least developed in the Ursidae. Reason: No evidence provided that this is true (it may well be, but, per WP:V, it still needs a citation to confirm that).
all teeth are deeply rooted and are diphyodont. Reason: No evidence provided that this is true (it probably is, but, per WP:V, it still needs a citation to confirm that).
The Canoidea superfamily ... are characterized by having nonchambered or partially chambered auditory bullae, nonretractable claws, and a well-developed baculum. Reason: No evidence provided that this is true (it probably is, but, per WP:V, it still needs a citation to confirm that).
Most species are rather simply colored Reason: Not obviously true, e.g. pandas, skunks
This is because Canoidea tend to range in the temperate and subarctic biomes Reason: No evidence provided that this would follow, or is even true (e.g. tropical weasels, jackals)
The Feloidea superfamily ... often have spotted, rosetted or striped coats, and tend to be more brilliantly colored than their Canoidean counterparts. Reason: Not obviously true, e.g. mongooses, civets
This is because these species tend to range in tropical habitats Reason: No evidence provided that this would follow, or is even true (e.g. snow leopards, Scottish wild cats)
600 m for the Weddell seal Reason: No evidence provided that this is true (it's believable, but it could be, say, 650 or 550 for all I know)
They can remain underwater for long periods of time, sometimes an hour or more, but most dives are usually short. Reason: No evidence provided that this is true (it probably is, but it still needs a citation to confirm that).
The molariform teeth are mostly homodont and the canines are well developed. Reason: No evidence provided that this is true (it probably is, but, per WP:V, it still needs a citation to confirm that).

Signed and dated for archive purposes only. William Harristalk 09:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Order

Order is showing up as 'Big Booty Bitches' on pages. Someone please fix.

Signed and dated for archive purposes only. William Harristalk 09:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Skunk about to spray.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)