# Talk:Mammal

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 February 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Icedburg824, Bokhan (article contribs).

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 February 2021 and 28 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): McKenzieKay, Balakay29, MariaBenitezC, AlyssaJordan.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[Profanity] unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:600B:8600:F5B5:57F3:A4EC:344C (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC) 

This is actually a pretty good point. Should there be some discussion on language (in humans or otherwise) in the Communication and vocalization section (a summary of Animal language#Mammals)? As of now, all that's discussed is warning and mating calls   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
There's only one mammal that can, and of course we're doing it on the mammal talk page ... Seriously though, there's absolutely no evidence, and a great risk of anthropomorphic nonsense. Killer whales can no more "talk" than parrots. An extremely long and intense series of experiments with the most promisingly human-like candidate, chimpanzees, totally failed; chimps were able to assemble short phrases using tiles, etc, but quite unable to speak. I suppose the article could say something of that kind, summarizing the woefully-titled Animal language. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I’d like to cite Washoe the chimp and this article, this article, and this weird thing I found. We probably can’t use that last one but it is definitely intriguing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Fact?: Francis of Assisi do speak with animals.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloud forest (talk • contribs) 08:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Good day! Please take part in the debate and votation. Thank you,Cloud forest (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
How can the users be invited to participate and vote in the debate, those appearing on this talk page? Cloud forest (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Cloud forest (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

No, he is associated with animals and birds in general, not mammals in particular; and even in a section on the relationship with humans, he'd be a minor footnote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
He´s a better candidate than Nixon. Cloud forest (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
This is not a forum for general discussion. Nixon is not even mentioned in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
There´s a picture of him.Cloud forest (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the image for this article was changed by Chiswick Chap three days ago without discussion. Could someone revert this? We should have a proper discussion of why the image should or should not be changed. 72.33.2.24 (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it to avoid including controversial human figures, as per (in fact) the discussion above on this talk page. For me that was a long overdue change, and one that the recent discussion renders absolutely necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

From the lead: "In cladistics, which reflect evolution, mammals—along with dinosaurs, and by extension, birds—are classified as endothermic amniotes."
This is nonsense right now and reads really awkwardly. The cladistics reference makes no sense when combined with a nonmonophyletic group, the reference to dinosaurs seems unnecessary (and I believe there is still controversy as to whether they were all endothermic?), and mammals aren't **classified** as endothermic amniotes, they **are** endothermic, that isn't based on classification. I'd fix it, but I can't really wrap my head around what this sentence is actually trying to say. Why is there a reference to cladistics here? Does anyone have a better idea? Somatochlora (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you're right. I've rephrased it in a way that I think makes more sense, and, more to the point, is probably more accurate. Anaxial (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks good!Somatochlora (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Taupe doree.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

There are 18 animals that make up the main picture. However, some of the 18 most distinct mammal clades are not represented on the picture. And some are represented multiple times. 

Remove 2 of the 3 Ferae (Seal, Pangolin, or Panda), Seal and Panda are only 40 million years separated (Cenozoic MRCA). Pangolin is 75 million years separate from them both.
Remove 1 of the 2 Even-toed ungulates (Reindeer or Whale) These are only 56 million years separated. (Cenozoic MRCA)
Remove 1 of the 2 Australidelphians (Kangaroo or Devil) These are 62 million years separated (Cenozoic MRCA)
Add 1 Lagomorph, 82 million years distinct from rodents, Mesozoic MRCA with the squirrel in the picture.
Add 1 Treeshrew, 82 million years distinct from Primatomorpha, Mesozoic MRCA with the human and colugo in the picture.
Add 1 Solenodon, 79 million years distinct from Talpidae, Soricidae and Erinaceidae, Mesozoic MRCA with the mole in the picture.
Add 1 Aardvark, 77 million years distinct from Afroinsectivora, Mesozoic MRCA with elephant shrew in the picture.
I can understand keeping the pangolin and forgetting the aardvark, since 77 million and 75 million are within margin of error. But the ones with Cenozoic MRCAs should probably be dropped in favor of Lagomorph, Treeshrew, and Solenodon representation. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really sure why why evolutionary distance is the metric being used. The images are illustrating the diversity of form/appearance of mammals, which makes sense because that's what you can actually see in a picture. Your proposal wouldn't do a great job of illustrating this - a solenodon looks pretty much like an elephant shrew which is already pictured, and a treeshrew looks pretty much like a squirrel which is already pictured. Somatochlora (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
But you agree on adding the lagomorph and aardvark?
Maybe we should replace the squirrel with something very exotic looking, like a porcupine. 
Then we could perhaps replace the elephant shrew with a tenrec? Especially the lowland streaked tenrec, which has an exceptionally striking appearance. 
I don't agree that the solenodon looks that similar to the elephant shrew, but I do think that the seal is a particularly poor picture. As it's not easy to really tell that it is a seal at all. I also think the bat picture could be better. 
To preserve the diversity in form, I recommend losing the deer, the Tasmanian devil, the seal, and I guess the panda. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Avahoneybrown made a recent edit in which they commented that Previous Taxobox needs editing out of the man as it suggests that black men and people of African origin are the ‘missing link’ between humans and animals.  I find myself agreeing that the choice of image for a human is questionable. Past versions of the image showed three politicians ([1]) and in 2018 Chiswick Chap updated the image to include the San man. 
Can we find another image that suitably shows a human without this specter of scientific racism? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing of the image of the Sans hunter seems to imply humans in their natural habitat. Personally I would put this picture of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, realistically we could use this image from the human article, and the easiest would be to go back to Nixon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Using any person we can name, especially a politician, will rightly be seen as non-neutral. People have worn business suits and neckties for less than 0.01% of the time that humans have existed, so choosing anyone like that is WP:RECENTISM. The choice of the San hunter was for me simple: for 99% (well, 99.9% actually) of the existence of the human race, we lived as hunters and gatherers, in Africa, and happily that ancient way of life still exists today. It will be impossible to find anything that is as clearly representative of this species, unless perhaps an image of a gatherer. I've no idea what "[un]scientific racism" has to do with it: all humans come ultimately from Africa, and anyone who can hunt fast and agile prey all day long under the hot sun, by running after it, deserves admiration. We're their descendants.
The other way of thinking about this is that humans represent just one of thousands of species of mammal, and a very recent newcomer, at that. It would make sense, for balance, to include some much longer-lived species rather than constantly overemphasising our own: we could call that WP:SPECIESISM. There are plenty of other articles on our species, several million, in fact. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 San people are one of the last hunter gatherer peoples on earth, and that sense do represent the "natural condition" of man, in a way that has nothing to do with them being black. Many of the bushmen have been treated terribly and forced to give up their traditional lifestyles by Afican Goverments and described as "remote area dwellers", and "Stone-Age". I have nothing but respect and admiration for them. Maybe we can use the image from the Human and Homo sapiens articles?Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
That's a misconception that the bushmen are wildtype humans, and that the dry African plains is the natural environment of the human race (as if we have a natural environment), as if that's how we're meant to live as a species. Such views of them being so archaic is probably the principle reason they are being castigated. Anyways, I see we've reverted back to Nixon, and the great saga of the mammal collage has come full circle   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
We could put up a photo of Carolus Linnaeus's skeleton (if such photo exists), since he designated himself as the type specimen for Homo sapiens XD Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Linnaeus never specified a type specimen, he just put down "know thyself"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

you know ... out there on internet there is Millions Billions Trillions Quadrillions of .... Pictures for Humans of all kinds , yet you got Nixon as example for Human Species ???
worst ever example , he was corrupted person whom Evently was kicked out of white house  .

how possibly you couldn't find neutral Simple Innocent Example for Human Kind ???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.39.235.27 (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC) 

I've noticed that the writing underneat the pie chart state that 70% of mammals are rodentia, yet the wiki page on rodentia show that the number lies closer to 40%, as does the graphic representation in the form of the pie chart. I can only assume that it should be 40%, but does anyone have knowledge or references giving the correct number?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beumer N. (talk • contribs) 07:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC) 

I think you're misreading it; the caption states that "70% of mammal species come from the orders Rodentia, Chiroptera, and Soricomorpha." This is correct, as the pie chart shows. Anaxial (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, Soricomorpha isn't considered an order anymore. This pie chart should be updated to reflect the current consensus on what constitutes an order. Skubes18 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, Cetacea is shown separate from Artiodactyla, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea categorises it as an infra-order of that order. Aero13792468 (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Would somebody who understands the inscrutable taxobox syntax please fix the link and description of image 4.3? It redirects to Reindeer, but it's an albino elk/wapiti. Acroterion (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

For that matter, it seems like a poor choice to use an atypical specimen in a group of animals where naming is so confusing. The original uploader thought it was a caribou. Acroterion (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
: i believe it's simply this : rect 530 380 350 500 reindeer. Change it to rect 530 380 350 500 Wapiti. I can't do it myself. I believed i manage to figured it out :) Gimly24 (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is the Taxonomy Template Mammalia Parent taxon shown as Mammaliaformes/skip? Therapsida is usually regarded as an unranked clade nowadays so how about just change the parent to Mammaliaformes in general? Magnatyrannus (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I honestly think the gif with the raccoon lungs is disgusting. Why not use an animated illustration instead? 46.212.117.57 (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think Wikipedia has any illustration that resembles the image in this section. Jarble (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems the article implies birds are reptiles but the reptiles article doesn't appear to mention that. 120.21.172.232 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Article uses “exponential” in the vulgar sense of “fast growth” for processes which do not grow exponentially. It’s better to 
just say “fast growth”. 85.226.194.47 (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You are talking about the two uses in the first paragraph of Mammal#Rise of the mammals? Have you confirmed that these periods of growth were not exponential? I haven’t read those sources, but it seems plausible. — HTGS (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
If you are only looking at changes over a "short" time period, then anything can be "exponential". Change from 1 to 2 is exponential in this sense. Or even just growth from 1 to 1.1 to 1.21 (with "exponential" 1.1^n.) Exponential growth means something repeatedly or continuously increasing by a multiplicative factor, and the assumption in using this term is that the growth period is long and no immediate bounds to it.. Otherwise it does not make any sense to use the word, and then it would be use of the term in the vulgar meaning. Like somebody's body weight increasing "exponentially". The two examples in this article are of the "vulgar" use, as the growth period has been limited, without the possibility of really continuing so long that a real exponentiality could be determined. 87.92.228.81 (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

We are still using a picture of Nixon and Brezhnev as the image for humans, which always reads to me as though someone thought it would be a sneaky joke. Ignoring even the problem of a potential political bias, it is a bit weird, and certainly provides a distracting context. From the biological perspective, if we are to show multiple people we would certainly be better to show a man and a woman, or an adult and a child.  
I understand that not everyone was happy with the photo of the San man, but we do have other options. A good image should be clearly illustrative and look good at a thumbnail size; it should show at least a significant amount of the body, rather than solely a face; it should not feature other animals; it can feature clothing, tools, weapons, etc, especially in situ, as there is no need to show people in a “native” state; but it should avoid obscuring the person too much under costumes or workgear, and should avoid centering activities more than the people doing them. 
Towards thinking about images, I have assembled some below, but please add to this list if you have good candidates. Note that while some of these are dark for this size, we can easily fix that for use in this article. I imagine that either a strong consensus will arise through discussion, or if necessary we can open an RFC using this discussion to pick candidates. — HTGS (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears that all the photos in the image box are part of one photo called Mammal Diversity. So it wouldn’t be easy to change. A. Rosenberg (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of someone identifiable in the image, because as you say it would be distracting. Out of the options you presented I think M is the best. Many of the others have distracting details such as elaborate clothing or other items (including the guy with the RPG, presumably a joke?). M works well as a thumbnail an adult & a child. I think K is also acceptable although I think the background is distracting in that one. Migrant mother would be a good photo but it is too recognisable, US readers would associate it with a particular historical event rather than being a neutral image of humans.
I say M. ManicMarine (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect, no one reading the article is going to be confused about what a human is. Unless there are some very smart gorillas who learn how to do academic research, I think the issue is one of appropriateness rather than utility. A. Rosenberg (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I know I am late to this discussion - but I'd like to say keep as is.
First: I think the choice of illustration for human as animal will always be arbitrary, and that any less-arbitrary seeming choice than Brezhnev and Nixon is likely to fall into the same trap as the San hunter—of stereotypes about primitivism and animalness.
I'm thinking of a recent interview Ezra Klein conducted with the philosopher Melanie Challenger. The gist is that as humans we seldom think of ourselves as animals when we are, you know, editing wikipedia or doing politics, but this is a cultural fiction.
Here, the category 'mammal' primes us to think that a human illustration should be in one of our more animal like modes, like a diorama in a natural history museum, or a medical illustration. The Nixon-Brezhnev illustration counterprograms that in a way that makes you stop and think, but stopping and thinking is not necessarily bad. There is a risk in Wikipedia editing, I think, to assume that the most smoothed out, most natural-seeming version is the best, and to reject more original styling, even when it is more artistically successful.
Arbitrary citation to Aristotle: humans are by nature a political animal Recognitor (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd say if we really have to replace Nixon, we should put Jimmy Wales or Larry Sanger Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Personally I think the way to go about this would be to start from Mammal (disambiguation) and then go with one of the humans linked to from there. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Like ManicMarine I think having a image without identifable persons is preferable. The one disadvantage of suggested picture M is that it would be the only one in black-and-white, while all other mammals have coloured pictures. Daranios (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Hairy beast has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 14 § Hairy beast until a consensus is reached.  Plantdrew (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The sentence: "There is a tension between the role of animals as companions to humans, and their existence as individuals with rights of their own." would be better changed to "as property of humans." Companions to humans does not encapsulate owning cattle for slaughter, for example. Or skinning animals for fur. It seems to be very specific to pet ownership? Changing to "property" gives a broader scope that covers it all. 2601:647:4D7F:5B55:89B4:8AB4:700A:B6C0 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

("Companion" almost sounds euphemistic.) 2601:647:4D7F:5B55:34DB:A579:6911:C615 (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The very first paragraph includes: “…These characteristics distinguish (mammals) from reptiles and birds, from which their ancestors diverged in the Carboniferous Period”.
The third paragraph includes: “Mammals originated from cynodonts, an advanced group of therapsids, during the Late Triassic to Early Jurassic.” 
There is no clear relationship here between the groups.  I propose to clarify the by showing the synapsids and diapsids as two clades of amniota, then the therapsids as a sub-clade of synapsids from which mammals derive.

“[Polyandry in animals|polyandrous]]” is missing an extra “[“ at the beginning. Greatstrongholder (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the note. SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Remsense is undoing a grammar mistake fixing edit that I have made, fixing minor grammar mistakes like for example "including hedgehogs, moles and shrews" making it to be "including hedgehogs, moles, and shrews", stating it was correct before. But if you look more at the page you'll see another part of the page that says "including cats, dogs, and seals", so it's just really inconsistent before-hand.  1Editorguy0 (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Serial commas aren't obligatory—they should be consistent, but I don't know which way and it's wrong to call such inconsistencies mistakes per se. You especially don't want to tuck punctuation inside of wikilinks like your edit did. Remsense ‥ 论 12:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Commas should be next to everything in a list until "and", not until the second to last item in a list. I apologize if I added punctuation marks inside of wikilinks. 1Editorguy0 (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)