Jump to content

Talk:List of prehistoric mammals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs attention desperately!

[edit]

Few things that caught my attention:

  • there are some clear errors, for example Litopterna is listed with horses.
  • the grouping is odd, for example dogs and hyaenas are lumped together, chalicotheres are listed among tapirs and brontotheres...
  • the insectovores haven't been broken up into their respective groups, they are still lumped under the wastebasket order Insectovora. For more info look in the book the Begginings of the Age of Mammals

Solution:

Let's make this page similar to the List of mammals page, with complete taxonomical classification (order/family/genus etc.).

--Jyril 10:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another, possibly better way is to merge these lists, and mark extinct groups with a dagger (†). --Jyril 10:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest keeping them separate and linking to this page on the List of mammals page. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 05:14

Let me add that some paleobiologists place oreodonts not in the pig-like suborder Suina, but rather in their own suborder, Oreodonta.

--Dr.Bastedo 18:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a list of things wrong with this article. Patachonica (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of prehistoric mammals

[edit]

I just want to say that the whole point of a LIST OF PREHISTORIC MAMMALS is just that --- a list. I agree they're should be another page with the taxonomy and family trees, but when a person is looking for a certain species it is impossible to find something that is not in alphabetical order. I realize that the page was an incomplete project but feel it should be just like List of dinosaurs with another page created for family trees and the like. Astropithicus

I agree that this list is currently in terrible shape. But I disagree that the species should be sorted alphabetically; there are so many mammal species that alphabetically sorted list would become impractical (though, simple order/family/genus level should be enough). Note that the List of mammals is also sorted taxonomically. My main concern was that the original list had species listed in totally wrong places.--Jyril 18:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could always have List of prehistoric mammals in alphabetical order as opposed to the vanilla taxonomic list. Sure, there's duplication of effort but it may appease folks who prefer the format as per the dinosaur list. Personally, I prefer taxonomically ordered lists and feel that if you're looking by alpha order, that's what Control-F is for -- however, I'm willing to do the legwork on this. I should have a beta version on my userspace by tomorrow if you're interested. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 02:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not tomorrow. This list is LONG. Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 04:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi everyone, I think we can all agree that this page needs some considerable clean up and verification by an expert. However, can we verify the links? As in:

  1. create stubs for extinct species to red links and put them into the list of requested articles?
  2. check the links that are already there.
    1. some go to forward to animals that are not extinct
    2. some don't even to go to animals Handy Man forwards you to a song, not a life form.

Personally, if I'm in the extinct animal page, I want to be sent to a page with that particular sub-species, not a close relative. Please let me know if you have opposition to this or any suggestion where I can post this as a project. Thanks, Leah 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Remove modern man?

[edit]

It strikes me as odd that modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens) is listed as a prehistoric mammal. I was under the impression that this list was for extinct mammals, and last time I checked, modern man is not extinct. 71.217.114.221 04:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page isnt for extinct mammals, just prehistoric ones. Modern man was present in prehistoric times, but also in historic and modern times. So in my view homo sapiens sapiens is not a prehistoric mammal. If man is a prehistoric mammal that means every mammal that is alive today is a prehistoric mammal, which is just stupid.

Pretty sure this article says at the top that it does not conclude extant organisms or recently extinct organims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.147.56 (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vagueness

[edit]

Needs an intro sction to indicate what is being included.

Long necked animal with an aardvark head?

[edit]

I thought this was Arsionotherium but the page betrays that this is not correct. Anyone know what I am referring to? It's one of the various trunked animals, but it's more like a deer or giraffe in appearance than an elephant, and the trunk is short with a narrow head. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of prehistoric Primates

[edit]

I have created a new article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_Primates, containing most Fossil Primate species. I consider that in a List of prehistoric mammals as here only taxa above the Family level should appear. Vasconicus (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge your work here. That's where it belongs. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a similar page: List of fossil primates. It wouldn't be viable to list all prehistoric mammals here, List of mammals has been divided many times for this reason, and there are far more prehistoric species than extant. Jack (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essonadon

[edit]

Is this junk? I can't in detail look right now, but it seems that way. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 04:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

OK I removed it, please FF to revert. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion on article scope at List of extinct mammals

[edit]

I started a discussion at List of extinct mammals about the scope of that article, which I think also pertains to the scope of this article. Specifically, I thought that article was supposed to cover modern extinctions, and this article was supposed to cover prehistoric extinctions, but wasn't sure where ancient-but-not-prehistoric extinctions should go. Please participate in the discussion there if you are interested. Calathan (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "ancient-but-not-prehistoric," you mean like the situation of the European Lion going extinct during ancient times?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the sort of animal I meant. Animals written about by people such as the ancient Greeks and Romans can't really be considered prehistoric. However, if they went extinct before 1500, then they wouldn't be considered modern extinctions by the common definition of modern. I wasn't sure where such animals should be listed, or if there is even a place for them. Calathan (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, they should be listed in "extinct mammals" as they would be modern in a geological sense. Or that it would be historical, at least.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of prehistoric mammals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of prehistoric mammals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_prehistoric_mammals&oldid=1200274473"