Jump to content

Talk:Mammal/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Ordering

Why are the orders not listed in alphabetical order? --rmhermen

It looks as though they're listed loosely by which are most closely related. Vicki Rosenzweig
To an outsider like me it looks like there is no order at all in both lists (article and side bar). 'Closely related' is a bit vague. Loosely closely related even more so. Erik Zachte 16:29, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to see the orders grouped into superorders. For instance, if I remember correctly, the Chiroptera, Insectivora and Primatia are in the same superorder (not sure of this; need to look this up), and the Carnivora and Pinnipedia are in the same superorder (sure of this one). John Knouse

What happened to the Insectivora? I see them split into three groups, two of which I've never heard of, and the third is a family. -phma

Poisonous mammals

At the cappuccino stand today, the trivia question was to name two poisonous mammals. I thought this might be a fascinating factoid to add to the article, but I didn't want to tamper with it at this point. One poisonous mammal is the Northern Short-Tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda). <>< tbc

Platypus Ornithorhyncus anatinus.

The male has poisonous spurs on its hind legs. One nerd point for me.  :-)

Even more nerd trivia: poisonous or venomous? It's poisonous if you eat it, it's venomous if it eats you :-)

The shrew is venomous, the platypus is poisonous, or at least the toxin is not used for predation, but defense and/or male-male competition. At least as far as anybody's been able to tell ;)

The above statement about venom vs. poison is both overly simplified and misleading. Although many vemonous animals are predators, it is not a requirement. A more accurate description would hinge on how the toxin gets IN to you. A poison is eaten or breathed in (IN-gested or IN-haled). A venom is usually harmless if eaten, to do harm it must come in contact with tissue underneath the skin (IN-jected).

the eyeball kid

I also believe that members of the Solenodontidae family and Soricidae (related) are also poisonous. These are related to the mole and look like mice.

the Echidna male (Order: Monotremata... also includes the platypus) like the rest of this order all have rear ankle spurs and glands, though they don't appear to use these to inject venom

g kishi

BOTH the Northern short tailed shrew AND the platypus are venomous, not poisonous. The male platypus uses those ankle spurs to inject the venom into anything stupid enough to grab it. THe shrew, btw, has little grooves in its teeth (not inside like a fang, but on the outside)that the venom follows into a bite wound. g kishi is right about the echidna male not using its spurs and glands. The solenodon, a large shrewlike mammal from Cuba and Haiti, produces toxic saliva that follows grooves in the teeth down into a bite wound.

swede

Believe it or not, there is a venomous primate! The loris, a prosimian from SE Asia, secretes toxins from a sweat gland on its elbow. It will then lick the toxins, and forward-sloping teeth guide their now-toxic saliva into bite wounds.

the eyeball kid

Believe it not!!! or maybe, stranger things have happened. That said i'm sure parts or even are bodies are poisonous, if you started eating stomach acid for example, and anything in excess is deadly, e.g. Insulin. Although I would agree poisonous/venomous mammals are in the minority although there is no reason for them to be, after all ancesters in particullar at the Phylum level were regularly venomous, although there must have been no selection pressure for the mammals to evolve that way, we were just to good on our own.

User:L.P.S.J

I was wonder the difference between poisonous and venemous. And I thought the Southern Short-tailed Shrew was poisonous too. --Mitternacht90 16:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there any poisonous rodents? Just tonight on Animal Planet I learned there is a poisonous bird, the pitohui (pron. "patooey"), so I'm ready for just about anything.

Linnaeus

Moved to talk:

"(Linnaeus named the order mammals for their breasts because he wanted to encourage women to breast-feed their infants.)"

mmmmm, patriarchal hegemony in science. Why hadn't I ever heard this one!! --MichaelTinkler

I think I got this from Stephen Jay Gould. Not patriarchal hegemony at all--breast-feeding one's own infant rather than hiring a wet-nurse (or, nowadays, using formula) doesn't map particularly well onto patriarchy, though it does have class elements. I'll see if I can find documentation on this. --Vicki Rosenzweig

Okay, I did a bit of googling. At http://biology.uindy.edu/langdon/HUMANSTRATEGY01/24birth.htm I found "Lactation and suckling are perhaps the only behaviors found in all mammals and are definitive of the order. (Linnaeus, who created the name Mammalia, was a supporter of women breast-feeding their own children instead of hiring nursemaids; hence his choice of nipples, rather than hair or the placenta to define the order.)" That's a bio textbook; not conclusive, perhaps, but I think a neutral source. Vicki Rosenzweig again

I'm the one who moved this quote to / Talk. I like it, I just question whether it belongs in the Mammalia entry. How about this: I think it says more about Linnaeus than it says about mammals - let's put it on the page of his article.
Moved it to Carolus Linnaeus. What do we think?
Makes sense to me. --Vicki Rosenzweig
I think it's interesting to know why a certain term was chosen. So there should be a way to get at that information easily. --HJH
This is probably the sort of thing where a primary source should be given as a reference. Even the reference that was given does not not say where this comes from. Even here, Michael's and Vicki's versions of the story are not the same. Michael's shorter version suggests that the story is about breast feeding versus not breast feeding at all. Vicki's at least clarifies that Linnaeus was criticizing the mostly upper class practice of using nursemaids.
Phrasing this issue in terms of male hegemony in the way in which it was probably has the effect of puttiong the male hegemonists on the opposite side of the issue to where they really are. A few years ago there was some controversy because the leadership in the pharmaceuticals industry was trying to sell baby formula - by convincing women to stop breast-feeding they could sell more formula. I would not think that the La Leche League was run by male hegemonists.

User:eclecticology

Your source for the patriarchal hegemonic aspect of Linnaeus's term mammalia is Londa Schiebinger's book Nature's Body (1993). She argues that Linnaeus's insistence on mothers breast-feeding their own children instead of farming them out to wet-nurses is an example of the patriarchal view that the woman's place is in the home, caring for the young, rather than whatever "frivolous" activities C18 upper-class women were doing when not caring for their children. Essentially he saw wet-nursing both as a contravention of nature and as an act of vanity - Fiona C-H.

I doubt Linnaeus ever wrote "I named the order 'mammals' for their breasts because I wanted to encourage women to breast-feed their infants"? Even where historical figures did write down their opinions, they usually did so for a reason, which in turn influenced what they wrote. Take Pierre de Coubertin, for example. How much more difficult is it then to pin not just an opinion but a motive on someone. Aliter 22:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is on BJAODN now, but it's not deleted. What does the D in BJAODN stand for? Betbest1 22:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good review offering support for this claim:

Scheiebinger (1993): Why mammals are called mammals: Gender politics in 18th century natural history. American Historical Review Ajcoyote 06:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)ajcoyote

I notice that none of this made it into the article. NPR just did an interesting story on some of this [1]. Apparently, the males of several species (horses and rats among them) do not have even vestigial breasts. Conversely, there are certain properties of the ear that are apparently universal among mammals and unique to mammals. Also, hair is uniquely mammalian. Anyway, it is an amusing listen making the case that Linnaeus' choice was rather arbitrary. It seems that something could well go in this article about the very process of demarcation of mammals as a distinct class. - Jmabel | Talk 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Give poor Linnaeus a break! Cuvier hadn't invented comparative anatomy (C was 62 years younger than L), so Linnaeus probably wasn't aware of the distinctive mammalian middle ear. Hair is visibly not universal among mammals (cetaceans are hairless). Monotremes were unknown at the time, so Linnaeus could have no idea that lactation was possible without teats. Under the circumstances he did very well to get it so nearly right.Philcha 09:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Whales'hair

Do whales have hair?

They sure do! Just not a whole lot of it, and not necessarily throughout their entire lives. A couple links:


Families

Is it really a good idea to list all families here on the class page? They can easily be found through the orders, while any errors or uncertainties would only be multiplied by this approach.

I have split the Family Mephitidae (the skunks) from the Family Mustelidae ino the taxonomy. Other articles on Wikipedia Mustelidae, Mephitidae, List of mammals, recognize this split, as does the ITIS, sp I think the taxonomy in the main article should also. Dsmdgold 15:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Classification

I have taken the liberty of changing the classification. This is following a discussion made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria. The results of that discussion show the--unfortunately small number of--correspondents in favour of adopting the Monotremata-Marsupialia-Placentalia system universally. The basic reasoning is this: most people will readily identify the subclasses with the actual animals (e.g. Marsupialia-marsupial) than with a -theria system (e.g. Metatheria-marsupial). The use of a system with three infraclasses and two subclasses (Prototheria and Theria) was rejected, on the grounds that it complicated classification but had little other uses.

Suffice it to say, following these results I have made the changes mandated. Feel free to object, but it would be better done on the page given above.--Ingoolemo 05:28, 2004 Jul 2 (UTC)

Live birth

Live birth also occurs in a variety of non-mammalian species

Could we have one or two examples please? -- Tarquin 09:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added two examples. Gentgeen 11:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lion image

When not logged in, the lion picture is smaller and has a cartoon-like bubble with the text "GRRRR" on it, which seems a bit of out place. But this doesn't appear when you are logged in. Any idea why this is happening? Probably should be fixed. Just my 2c, Matiasp 20:38, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I kind of like it. Every good reference book has a little joke snuck in here and there.

I have put a completely different image on there now (following that vandalism). If you clear your cache, you should see the new pic. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 18:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Haha. lol. :P :D That's a good one. --Mitternacht90 16:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Click here?

"Click on the highlighted link". The readers probably know how to follow a link, since it's unlikely they would have been able to get here if they didn't.
Also, that description may not be all that precise, since all the links to existing pages are highlighted in most Wikipedia skins, which means it refers to one out of something like three-hundred "highlighted" links. Aliter 22:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Overcapitalisation?

Linguistic issues

What's so strangely special about Gorilla, Orangutan, Human, Hog-nosed Bat and Sucker-footed Bat that their names are capitalised while most other names of species (which are common nouns after all!) are not capitalised?

From Capitalization: In English, in addition to proper nouns, proper adjectives (those derived from a name, such as Canadian, Shakespearian) are written with initial majuscules, as are the names of days of the week, months, languages, and the pronoun I. Some authors, though few if any grammar books, also treat the names of individual species of living things (animals, plants, etc) as proper nouns, and use initial majuscules for them, as in e.g. Peregrine Falcon while asserting that others, e.g. horse or person are not common names of species and should not be capitalized.

Age

How old can mammals get?

Some cetaceans may reach more than 100 years and elephants come rather close. I'm not sure if the 100+ whale record beats the 100+ human record (excluding Biblical 969, 930, and 777 year olds of course). --Aranae 01:08, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Let's not include Biblical or other religious refrences because this is a science article, not a religious one. Cameron Nedland 04:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomy

I'm thinking of moving much the taxonomy section to a new page where it will be expanded. I thought I'd check for input before doing so. Among the questions are:

  • 1.) What should the page be named? I'm thinking "Mammal taxonomy"
  • 2.) What should remain behind? I'm thinking the text as it stands for each subsection and a bare outline of the big clades (subclass, infraclass, etc.) along with a parenthetical description of the animals in the clade.
  • 3.) How do multituberculates, triconodonts, and other extinct groups fit into the taxonomy used in wikipedia?
  • 4.) Anyone object to this plan? --Aranae 01:08, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

It's a good idea. 49 screens of taxa is a bit much :). 2) sounds good... though the title depends on what you want to do with the taxonomy article. If it's just lists, then the article title should reflect it ("List of mammal classifications", for instance). But if you're going to create an actual article and leave a summary behind, a more general title like "Mammal classification" (or taxonomy) is appropriate. 3) They don't... but a taxobox standard has nothing to do with the article, which should definitely discuss the shortcomings of the major taxonomic schemes, and where modern mammals came from. 68.81.231.127 13:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the text. It's now at the page: Mammal classification. --Aranae 05:26, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. 68.81.231.127 18:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Classification of the Placentalia

Which classification do we use? McKenna & Bell, genetic or traditional? There is a separate category and page for the Afrosoricida, however, Chiroptera states that bats are members of the Archonta. We need to be consistent in these issues. I think we should use the genetic classification, but, in any case, there must be only one. Ucucha 09:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, if it has to be one, then the often controversial genetic one is certainly the worst choice. I suggest we stick to what authoritative works like McKenna&Bell state... Fedor 22:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
...and include all mirorders and grandorders and so on. I don't think the McK&B classification with its many categories is a good choice. The IUCN has its own Afrotheria specialist group, that seems to be a sign that the molecular classification is accepted in some way. They shouldn't have done this when the Afrotheria was as controversial as Fedor states.
However, I don't want to say that the genetic classification must be used all the way. It might be best to use both McK&B en genetic. "In the McKenna & Bell classification scheme, bats are placed in the grandorder Archonta, however, recent genetic evidence suggests that they belong within the superorder Laurasiatheria, together with ungulates, carnivores, pangolins and eulipotyphlans" might be a good sentence. Ucucha 04:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please. I already had this long discussion at the Dutch wikipedia, where you can look it up. Read nl:Overleg:Mammalia_(taxonomie), so I don't have to repeat all over again. The genetic results are unstable, highly controversial and not supported at all by the majority of morphological taxonomists. The IUCN is not a taxonomic body, but an organisation for nature conservation for whom the 'Afrotheria' is a very useful concept from a conservation point of view. That's all. I suggest we wait with integrating recent research until the results have been validated and supported by the majority of scientists. Authoritative works are a good test for validity of classification. Fedor 19:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think discussing the differing opinions is the best way to go. There's actually no reason that many of these decisions must be decided upon, even for taxoboxes. The notions of Archonta and/or Euarchonta need not be formalized, because mirorders and grandorders aren't vital to the functioning of taxoboxes. The field is in a state of debate and that debate should be reflected in the articles. Separate articles for Archonta, Laurasiatheria, Euarchonta, Euarchontoglires, and Ungulata would all be worthwhile and valid as either representing actual relationships or historic, competing hypotheses of relationships. There are some situations, such as Cetartiodactyla, where decisions should be made (though the alternatives should be mentioned). In those case, it really boils down to accuracy and scientific consensus. There we're forced to choose between authorities and I think we have to just do our best based on the data. In that regard, I think new hypotheses should be accepted if they are well supported by the data and if they are achieving some consensus. Cetartiodactyla, for example, has obtained a wide swath of molecular, morphological, and paleontological supporters. Yingochiroptera vs. Yangochiroptera is a much more controversial idea and may go the way of short-lived, poorly supported molecular hypotheses such as: Prototheria + Metatheria and guinea pigs aren't rodents. My opinion is that the Afrotheria, Glires, Euarchonta, Euarchontoglires, Laurasiatheria, Boreoeutheria, etc. are probably valid and have received enough support by the community that they should be our standards for extant taxa. They have not received enough support to warrant listing without mentioning competing hypotheses, and they have not been adequately expanded to incorporate most fossil taxa at this point. We're stuck with the old taxonomies for fossils until the fossils are re-evaluated in light of molecular results, much as the hippo-whale situation has. --Aranae 01:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Although I agree that we should present both views, I have the impression that you give the molecular results more credit than they actually deserve. If I perhaps am not aware of the latest, please enlighten me. If there is no morphological support for molecular trees, then it is way too early to warrant them validity. E.g. the latest article I know about, by Thewissen, still supports Artiodactyl monophyly, be it with Cetacea as sister-group (thus, no support for 'Cetartiodactyla'). And I have no clue as to what the morphological support for, say, Afrotheria constitutes of, or of any other of these groups. But again, feel free to enlighten me.... Fedor 10:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Some references for the lacking morphological support for e.g. 'Cetartiodactyla':
Thewissen: "Our cladistic analysis indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to artiodactyls than to any mesonychian. Cetaceans are not the sister group to (any) mesonychians, nor to hippopotamids. Our analysis stops short of identifying any particular artiodactyl family as the cetacean sister group and supports monophyly of artiodactyls." [2]
Total evidence results: "Addition of data from recently described astragali attributed to cetaceans does not overturn artiodactyl monophyly." [3]
Molecular results possibly misleading: [4]
Cheers, Fedor 11:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I only want to note that the tribe Abrothrichini (Rodentia: Cricetidae: Sigmodontinae), split from the Akodontini based only on cyt b sequences, which is not supported by any morphological synapomorphy, has been supported by the majority of scientists (my impression). Ucucha 14:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Re: Cetartiodactyla: The molecular data is pretty tough to argue with there. There are several independent genes (including really nice SINE and LINE data) and analyses and they all say the same thing. There has also been some, although sometimes weak, morphological support. Naylor and Adams (2001, Syst Biol, 50:444-453), for example, demonstrated that O'Leary and Geisler's (1999) morphological results were the result of the dental portion of the dataset. The rest of the data suggested that the relationship shown by molecules was the accurate one. Meanwhile, Gatesy et al. (1999, Syst Biol, 48:6-20; and 2002, Syst Biol, 52:652-664) include large (>100) numbers of morphological characters in their analyses. See also Geisler and Uhen (2003, J Vert Paleontol (2003, 23:991-996). My take is that while there is debate among morphologists (admittedly I didn't realize it was still ongoing until reading your post), but you'd be hard pressed to find molecular systematists that have problems with a hippo + whale clade at this point. Again, I want to reiterate that wikipedia should present both sides of this and other arguments. --Aranae 01:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
It is good that you acknowledge that these molecular groups are still controversial and barely backed up by any other evidence than molecules. In my experience, molecular results are not always as reliable as the give the impression to be. There have been too many nonsensical groupings (apes and rabbits f.ex.) that later had to be overturned and the different molecular trees supposedly supporting Afrotheria have the grouping jumping from branch to branch (see here). Pretty strange results if you ask me. Anyway, I got the impression that you were ready to overturn the current consensus and establish these controversial groups as 'fully valid'. Again: It is way too early for that. And of course we actually agree that both views should be presented. Fedor 08:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ucucha makes a good point. In many cases it's a matter of molecules demonstrating molecular arguments in situations where there weren't really morphological synapomorphies to begin with. The notion of Afrotheria requires Insectivora and Ungulata to be polyphyletic. Insectivora was a wastebasket group defined on plesiomorphic morphology to begin with. Ungulata was a bit tenuous as well considering how many different ways unguligrade foot posture was produced. Anyway, we should be having these debates by upgrading the articles themselves, not their talk pages. --Aranae 01:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Well, sorting out a tribe with many species is one thing, overturning a consensus of major groups based on unreliable and contradictory molecular evidence is another. But this is an academic discussion and we should simply follow the consensus among scientists, in stead of slapping each other on the head with publications. I disagree that we should integrate our own discussions in the article. We should simply display the different alternatives, maybe summarize some supporting evidence and leave it at that. Fedor 08:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fedor, the papers you site do claim that Cetacea branch within the Artiodactyla. They just allow paraphyletic groups, considering it a type of monophyly, as was traditional before Hennig. In other words, the difference isn't one of phylogeny, just of approach to classification. It's equivalent to the debate over whether Reptilia is a valid class. And, as a note, even if Cetacea and Artiodactyla were sister groups, it wouldn't invalidate Cetartiodactyla (just render it unnecessary). Josh

Josh, that is simply untrue and I deplore that you apparantly did not properly read my sources. Two of the analyses I mentioned (the purely morphological one by Thewissen, and the total-evidence one by O'Leary), both use cladistic methods and a phylogenetic understanding of what constitutes a monophyletic group. They both write that they have evidence that Artiodactyla is not a paraphyletic group by the exclusion of Cetacea, and that the two are sister-groups instead. Fedor 08:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You state that the molecular classifications are very unstable, however, morphological ones are equally unstable. The Thewissen paper you cite states that mesonychians are not the sister clade of cetaceans, but O'Leary states they are. Ucucha 13:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just put together a Cetartiodactyla page. I encourage those of you that have taken part in this discussion (particularly Fedor) to edit away at it. Please get rid of any of my own POV. --Aranae 03:29, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

See also Boisseri, J.-R., Lihoreau, F. & Brunet, M. 2005. The position of Hippopotamidae within Cetartiodactyla. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(5):1537-1541, 1 February 2005. [5] Morphological support for hippo-whale. Ucucha 06:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Multituberculata

Where are the multituberculates on this page? They are the only order or subclass of Mammalia to go extinct and were very succesful during the Cretaceous and early Paleogene. Should not there be mention of them on this page somewhere? Paleok

They're many more orders which have gone extinct (Notoungulata, Litopterna, Bibymalagasia, Astrapotheria, Condylartha and many others) and possibly also a few subclasses (what's a subclass?). They are mentioned at Mammal classification. Ucucha See Mammal Taxonomy 06:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Count

Just reading up for the hedgehog article. My encyclopedia says "over 4,000" species of mammals. sould we add this to the article? -- Tarquin

Papers I have read suggest that there are 4600 - 4800 species of animals. Are we using the correct count on the actual page? Papers using these numbers cite

D. E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder, Eds., Mammal Species of the World; A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, ed. 2, 1993); R. M. Nowak, Walker's Mammals of the World ( Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD, ed. 5, 1999)

I realize it's last edited in 1999; however, the emergence of 1000 species in 8 years seems a bit high. 66.191.116.114 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)mosm

Nowak is mostly based off of Wilson and Reeder (1993: 2nd edition) who list 4,629 spp. The third edition (Wilson and Reeder, 2005) lists 5,416 species. 260 of these were actually described between the two editions. The remaining species are the result of revions that led to elevation of taxa that had formerly been considered either subspecies or synonyms. --Aranae 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Structure

The third paragraph seems IMO to belong with first half of the first - defining mammals, to which some details about heart & tempture control could be added. My main references are however two to three decades old - so review of these details would be appreciated. User:Daeron

Mammal Species of the World, 2nd ed

The new edition is coming out this December. Amazon has it and you can view the entire table of contents, which shows the mammalian orders, families and subfamilies. Hopefully the introduction will deal with the subclasses or superorders. I have a pre-release of the Primates order section (which includes suborders and other intermediary taxa) and have updated the relevant articles here and on Wikispecies. (As I'm typing this, I notice a discrepancy between the index and my prerelease. I'm not sure though, which is more up-to-date.) As this publication is the defacto standard all other mammal classifications are measured against, we should probably utilize it to some significant degree. What follows is the classification as listed in the index of MSW:

(Whew! Any typos are the fault of the lenght of this list, and not because I'm doing this so late while on vacation. Um... yeah.) - UtherSRG 04:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Uther, I hate to be the bearer of bad news after all that work, but this is the table of contents for the 2nd edition dated 1993. The version coming out this fall (2005) is the third edition. There will be a number of changes from this list. --Aranae 05:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Doh! Ah well.... that would explain the differences between the Primate section I already have and the index. *sigh*
I have the real TOC for 3rd ed. (as well as some parts [Australian marsupials, monotremes, lagomorphans, primates]), but I don't think it's fair to the authors to pre-publish it here already. Ucucha See Mammal Taxonomy 19:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Syndactyla: mammals?

Superorder Syndactyla: syndactylous marsupials

According to my encyclopedia, Syndactyla only refers to a genus of Furnariidae (a bird family). Therefore, what is it doing in the mammal page? I kept this superorder in the page however just in case somebody can offer an explanation.

Leptictidium 13:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It also refers to the clade containing "syndactylan" marsupials: Diprotodontia and Peramelemorphia. They have the peculiarity that two toes have grown together, which results in one toe having seemingly two claws. Ucucha|... 14:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Perfect.

Leptictidium

Afrosoricida

We say here that we are going to treat the "Afrosoricida" as members of Insectivora. But then in the Insectivora article, we do not include Chrysochloridae or Tenrecidae, and we have an Afrosoricida article that supports that view. The articles on Tenrecidae and Chrysochloridae also support the Afrosoricida view. Shouldn't this be resolved? john k 02:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we can better split the Insectivora: Afrosoricida for Tenrecidae and Chrysochloridae, Erinaceomorphia for Erinaceidae and Soricomorphia for Talpidae and Soricidae. At present, most mammalogists agree that the Insectivora is just a wastebasket of unplaced families. They're all a bit primitive, so they may share some characters. But the Insectivora is not a monophyletic group. In any case, our nomenclature should be consistent. Ucucha|... 13:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think I'd prefer keeping together the two non-Afrosoricida, but I basically agree. In general, it seems to me that the current organization of superorders is somewhat indefensible, as well. Even traditional taxonomists don't normally put the primitive ungulates (Elephants, Aardvarks, Hyraxes, Sirenians) together with the advanced ungulates. I'm not generally a big fan of cladism as a guide to Linnaean classification, since I think they're basically incompatible, but it seems like our version of the mammal tree actually includes some polyphyletic superorders. Paraphyletic is fine with me, but Polyphyletic seems hard to justify. john k 14:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
McKenna & Bell did recognize a "large" Ungulata, but they're not "the consensus", of course.
I think having a separate Erinaceomorphia and Soricomorphia is good for stabilization. The monophyly of the Erinaceomorphia/Soricomorphia is very doubtful, I think. Ucucha|... 16:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I will admit that my views are not so much based on knowledge of the monophyly of the Insectivora-Afrosoricida, so much as the fact that most of our articles, and our mammal template, seem to already be working on that basis. john k 18:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The difficulty of recovering erinaceomorph/soricomorph monophyly was mostly based on older complete mt genome studies and was not been so much a problem with conflict as it has just a lack of support. Newer work (i.e. Douady and Douzery, 2003; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 28:285-296) including complete mt genome analyses (Hudelot et al., 2003; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 28:241-252) are beginning to show suport for monophyly of Eulipotyphla and I suspect that will eventually hold out. If anything, I think the debate now is more along the lines of whether the correct topology is ((shrews, hedgehogs),moles) or ((shrews, moles), hedgehogs). --Aranae 18:20, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
So are you saying that the Insectivora/Afrosoricida split that we have in most of our articles, but not in the main text here, is the way to go? john k 19:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
It should be called Lipotyphla or Eulipotyphla, at least. I'm still sceptical about the monophyly of hedgehog-shrew-mole. The placement of the solenodons and Nesophonteses is also problematic. In any case, Afrosoricida should be a separate order. Ucucha|... 19:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
(I keep having editing conflicts. We're all talking too fast. This is in response to john) Oh definitely. There's nothing but a handful of primitive morphological characters that could even be proposed to support an Afrosoricida/Eulipotyphla relationship. There are a host of well-supported molecular studies saying they are distinct. I think the only legitimate debate here is what to do with the Eulipotyphla (shrews, moles, hedgehogs, and solenodons). --Aranae 19:22, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Classificatory revision based on genetic data.

This has been around and used by specialists for a couple of years, but hasn't been adopted by general encyclopedias yet.

Recent genetic studies have changed the phylogeny of certain groups within the placental mammals. Within the placentals, there are two subgroups- "Afrotheria," (so named because most members of the clade are found in Africa) which includes elephants, hyraxes, manatees, aardvarks, elephant shrews, tenrecs, and Golden moles- and the rest of the placentals ("non-afrotheria" I guess). The groups included within Afrotheria clade were previously associated with other groups- for example, elephants and manatees were grouped as ungulates, tenrecs were grouped with insectovores, and Golden moles were grouped with regular moles. Similarities to these other groups is now thought to be convergence, with the Afrotheria forming a natural clade apart from all other placentals.

So in other words:

1 

     1------> Placentals
                       1
                       1----------->Afrotheria
                       1
                       1
                       1
                       1------->Xenarthra
                       1
                       1                
                       1
                       1----->Primates/Bats/Rodents/etc.
                       1
                       1
                       1
                       1------>Ungulates/Carnivores/Insectivores/etc.


Source: Afrotheria: Plate tectonics meets genomics

--Rob117 03:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. We're talking about it for a long time already here ;-). It hasn't been accepted generally, as yet, I think. Your Primates/Bats/Rodents/etc. clade is called Euarchontoglires, Ungulates etc. is Laurasiatheria, and the Euarchontoglires-Laurasiatheria clade is the Boreoeutheria. It has been suggested that Xenarthra and Afrotheria are a clade, Atlantogenata. Ucucha|... 05:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Just a quick correction, bats are not Euarchontoglires, but are part of Laurasiatheria. --Aranae 03:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot about that.--Rob117 23:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hermaphrodites

Got into a heated argument about whether there are any 'true hermaphrodites' in the mammal kingdom. Any HELP please?

I'm fairly certain no species are hermaphrodites, but individuals can be born with both sex organs. --Aranae 16:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Tubulidentata out of place

In the McKenna & Bell classifcation given in the article, somebody included Tubulidentata, but they messed up the formatting so that it seems like mirorders Eparctocyona, Meridiungulata, and Altungulata are subdivisions of Tubulidentata. Could somebody who's handy with editing (I don't want to mess it up even more) fix it?

Taken care of --Aranae 04:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

New "Oldest" Aquatic Mammal Discovered?

I am not particularly adept at writing about this sort of subject matter, so I thought I would pass along this link to a LiveScience article that declares that some folks in China (Mongolia) have just discovered what they are describing as the oldest aquatic mammal species ever described, Castorocauda lutrasimilis. Dick Clark 19:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


The Mammalian Evolutionary Record

Someone who knows about the subject could have a look at The Mammalian Evolutionary Record and know what to do with it, I am not sure if this should be an article, but i am an inclusionism so i hope it evolves into a well written article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mexaguil (talk • contribs) .

Yeah... it's a speedy delete.... - UtherSRG (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Split into mammal anatomy

I have suggested a split of some of the bird article's content into a new article: bird anatomy. This is done on the basis that there is already a bird skeleton article. I think the same should be done with mammal anatomy; a general article to deal lightly with general animal anatomy, and how mammal anatomy varies from this in the ways it does (brain/lungs/heart etc.). Split - mastodon 11:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Neocortex

Neocortex is not unique to mammals, it already appeared in reptiles .

The corpora quadrigemina is, however, unique to mammals. --Aranae 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Subclass or order

The taxobox lists Multituberculata, Palaeoryctoides, Triconodonta and Australosphenida as subclasses but the articles about them are talking about orders. I've put the contradict-other template, hoping it would grab the attention of someone more knowledgeable than me who will fix one or the other. -- Goldie (tell me) 18:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Xenarthra

What is Xenarthra doing in Afrotheria? Anyone know?


Yeah please tell me why there's two order... ????I'm confused.??? --Mitternacht90 16:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Subclass challenge

Can anyone cite any legitimate reference anywhere that uses "Subclass Marsupialia", "Subclass Placentalia", or "Subclass Eutheria"? --Aranae 19:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

not me, but we use Subclass Marsupialia all the time at university. --Hypo Mix 10:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Gill 1872 use Subclass Eutheria (at the time including marsupials)? Ucucha 16:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not the usage applied in this and related articles. Basically, I'm convinced that there are no reasonable sources that apply the 3 subclass arrangement that we use in wikipedia articles. I'm convinced it is an arrangement that was literally made up by wikipedia editors. I'm also convinced that after being on these pages for almost 2 1/2 years[6] it is beginning to move beyond the wikipedia mirrors and into the informal www. I think this is a bad thing.
I can't find any sources that break mammals into three groups of equivalent rank. Everything I can find breaks extant mammals into two groups (almost always at a subclass level) intially: monotremes vs. therians. Therians are then divided into two groups (usually infraclass or cohort): marsupials vs. mammals. Here are a few examples of sources that divide mammals into monotremes vs. therians and therians into marsupials and placentals.
  1. Groves's (2005) Monotreme chapter in MSW3 (the only place it is discussed in MSW3).
  2. McKenna and Bell's (1997) Classification of Mammals.
  3. Vaughn's (1986, 2000) Mammalogy text.
  4. Feldhamer et al.'s (1999, 2004) Mammalogy text.
  5. Duff and Lawson's (2004) Mammals of the World checklist (citing McKenna and Bell).
  6. ITIS
  7. Animal Diversity Web
  8. NCBI
  9. Mikko's (citing McKenna and Bell
  10. MacDonald's (1987) Encyclopedia of Mammals (popular text)
So to repeat and reword the question, can anyone cite a legitimate reference that uses a 3 subclass arrangement of extant mammals: monotremes, marsupials, and placentals? If not, why is it being used? --Aranae 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, whoever uses Marsupialia? I think Metatheria is preferred today. Dysmorodrepanis 02:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lion

While impressive, it's not really a 'typical' mammal, is it? Vitriol 20:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's representative from the perspective that mammals are currently dominant in terms of large animals of high trophic levels. I think taxobox images could potentially include an image of anything within that clade. Are you suggesting that a more morphologically primitive species would be a better choice? Perhaps: Image:Igel.JPG, Image:Macroscelides. proboscideus.6869.jpg, Image:Dixi-Solenodon cubanus.png, Image:Anathana ellioti.jpg, Image:AwesomePossum-AmericanOpossum.jpg, Image:Caluromys philander.jpg, Image:Metachirus nudicaudatus.jpg, Image:Monodelphis domestica.jpg, Image:Southern short-tailed shrew.jpg, Image:Neomys anomalus.jpg, Image:SpottedQuoll 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg, Image:Sorex minutus-1.jpg, or Image:Tanrek.jpg would be more to your liking? --Aranae 23:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

shorten the taxobox?

The taxobox seems bewilderingly long for this group. Could we reduce it to the major subgroups (multituberculates, placentals, marsupials, etc.) and leave the breakdown into orders for the body of the article, and the taxoboxes for each of those major subgroups? Cephal-odd 06:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I'll reduce it to the major subclasses and any orders that don't fall into a subclass. Dinoguy2 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Need a new page on evolution of mammals?

The material about the evolution of mammals is sketchy and incomplete, but dominates the article. I suggest a separate "evolution of mammals" article with only a brief summary (12 lines if possible) in this one. That would allow room for additional content in this page. The "evolution of mammals" article could then include additional detail and some new topics, e.g.: more about the evolution of specific mammalian features (it's a real mosaic); more about Cenozoic mammals and their ecosystems; the "great American interchange" (N American placentals displaced most S American marsupials, but possums launched a successful counter-invasion); diagrams of synapsid and other skulls, mammalian and non-mammalian jaws, etc.Philcha 13:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A further reason for a separate "evolution of mammals" article: the distinction between "mammaliformes" and "mammals" was made by some (?over-enthusiastic) cladists who wanted to create a crown group "mammals" containing only descendants of the last common ancestor of monotoremes, marsupials and placentals. "Mammaliformes" apparently contains some lineages which met the jaw-ear criterion. Explaining this is, I think, too long and too detailed for a general page on mammals. And it will necessitate updating the evolutionary timings in the current "mammal" article so that, if we use the wider sense of "mammal", true mammals evolved earlier but the interval between first true mammals and first marupials and placentals was even longer. And even if we use the narrowest definitions of "mammal", there's disagreement about whether multituberculates qualify. And then there are the recent discoveries of Repenomamus and Castorcauda, Cretaceous mammals which upset the "small insectivores" stereotype of Mesozoic mammals. To cap it all, Hopson and Rich claim that an early monotoreme still had the articular attached to the jaw, which would seriously undermine the jaw-ear criterion for membership of "mammals". Oh dear, this "talk" item is now longer than some articles, so guess how long a reasonably thorough article on evolution of mammals would be.Philcha 21:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's strange that nobody responded to this request. I think that an extended article on the evolution of mammals is an excellent idea! Are you still willing to write it? DaMatriX 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
When I posted my ramblings (mid-Jan 2007) I would have been. But in mid-Jan 2007 I put a lot of work into editing Dinosaur, and then someone reverted the whole thing for what I consider no good reason - see [7] item "Dinosaur". So at present I'm not willing to put in the amount of work needed to produce a good article on mammalian evolution (although I am working on other non-paleontology topics).Philcha 12:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of the mammalian inner ear

The article would be improved with discussion of the ear bones found still connected to the lower jaw in the fossil of Early Cretaceous Yanoconodon. A mutual link with "transitional fossil" [sic] would be good. --Wetman 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Seal

On behalf of all the mammals out there, do we really want a freakin' seal representing us on the top of the page. I'm putting my vote in for a good old-fashioned howler monkey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.114.162.133 (talk • contribs).

The image changes from time to time. Previous images included a tapir and a lion. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mammal/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It's been some time since the article has been reviewed and I've been making extinsive changes to the article since, particulary in the "evolution" section. Perhaps it is time to peer review the article again, to make sure my edits are good and the article still deserves the same rating? DaMatriX 20:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

- ==Hair included as Distinguishing Characteristic?==

Should Hair be included in the 'Distinguishing Characteristics' section? It was the first distinguishing feature mentioned in the opening section. Ken234Fabian (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 15:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mammal/Archive_1&oldid=1136985090"