Talk:Maelestes

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.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Maelestes is no proof or disproof of anything

"The discovery and analysis of this species suggests that true placental mammals appeared during the time the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, not earlier in the Cretaceous as previously thought."

Well, this may be the opinion of the authors of the referenced article, but that's no reason to present it as a fact in the Wikipedia article! I see no reason why the discovery of Maelestes is a proof or disproof of anything. The molecular view of mammal evolution states that many modern orders of Eutherians has their origin earlier in the Cretaceous, and not after the K/T boundary. Now, if Maelestes is a Cimolestan, it means that:

1. The split between Cimolesta and Perissodactyla must have been earlier in the Cretaceous. 2. The split between these groups and the Cetartiodactyla must have been even earlier. 3. The origin of all of these groups, all from the Condylarthra, must have been even earlier. 4. The split between the Eulipotyphla and the other Laurasiatheria must have been even earlier. 5. The split between the Laurasiatheria and the other Eutherians (such as Euarchontoglires) must have been even earlier.

So I don't see why Maelestes provides a problem at all for the alternative view of mammal evolution, which points to a very early origin of many modern orders of mammals. DaMatriX (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]