Talk:Mammal-like reptiles

Needs a better example than Dimetrodon

Hello. I think it's fair to say that Dimetrodon is not a very good example of a mammal-like reptile. If we have to pick one for an illustration, let's find a cynodont instead. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

"It has been suggested that this article (Mammal-like reptiles) or section be merged with Synapsida." This is the usual point of view of someone who is conversant with a subject. However, not everyone is so familiar with this topic to associate mammal-like reptiles with sinapsida; that's why they look up "mammal-like reptiles" in an encyclopedia. These points are true in general as well. By all means, incorporate the information in this article in Synapsia, but leave "mammal-like reptiles" as a separate, searchable topic. A short paragraph detailing the relationship of Mammal-like reptiles to synapsida and a link to Synapsida would suffice.

Mike Sarles Sunday, 2007-07-15T16:05UTC

I'd support the merger. For anybody who is unfamiliar with the subject, the first thing to learn is that there is taxonomically no such beast as a mammal-like reptile! Which they will find out from the opening paragraph of Synapsida. Turn this page into a redirect and it will take them straight to where they need to be. Gnostrat 19:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be redirected (or merged) to the synapsid page. M&NCenarius 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speak for more than just myself when I say "I am so confused." "half mammal half reptile" was used in a documentary. Looking this up has made me more confused. This introduction needs to be more succinct. Explanations for what makes it mammal like are in the characteristics, but they're confusing as to how it applies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.245.25 (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. The study of animals is not taxonomy. I oppose the merger as it implies the taxonomy should rule over all attempts to explain evolutionary trends. The current page allows a lay reader to access ideas of change without any particular lateral thinking. Imposing taxonomy too early imposes the opposite logic: of fixity and knowledge in boxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.19.77 (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you explain evolutionary trends without taxonomy? You can't even establish the direction of evolution without a prior classification. Taxonomy is a dynamic and fluid science, classifications are testable hypotheses, it isn't all fixity and boxes. That doesn't mean the taxonomy should overwhelm the article; at Synapsida I don't think it does, and still less if the material from this article is added.

Explaining evolutionary change can just as well be done at Synapsida and with a broader context. The current article is for the most part clearly explained and a lot of it could sit at the beginning of the merged article. I don't think there's any danger that the general picture of evolutionary trends would get lost in the details.

Actually, this current article is less good on the evolutionary trends and nuances because of its generality. It makes some sweeping statements such as "their overall character is more like a modern lizard" — true of Archaeothyris but hardly of trithelodonts! The Synapsid article does a better, but complementary, job of detailing those transformations. Gnostrat 15:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]