Talk:Ground sloth

message: Why are we talking about "the four species of ground sloth found in the United States"? A bit like discussing "Belgian dinosaurs" no? Why not North America? --Wetman 02:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a relic from when the article listed those four as the only species—it previously said only "the four identified species..." without the geographic limiter that someone else added.  Feel free to correct that as you see fit.  Postdlf 04:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not competent. I'd just substitute "North America" for "United States"... --Wetman 05:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But then I worry if other species have been found in Canada or Mexico that haven't been found in the U.S, which would then make the statement incorrect.  Maybe it's best to simply move the section to a less prominent spot, or comment it out for now until someone with more knowledge on the subject than you or I can deal with it?  Postdlf 05:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: It refers to either continent that contained ground sloths, North America or South America.  --Aranae 22:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Americo-centric

message: There's something wrong with the layout on this page. Does someone know how to fix it?
Andrew Moylan 04:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: I doubt this idea would be feasible but does anyone have any thoughts on doing a map where we could put virtual pins on where such animals have been found? I think it would add to not only this but many of the long extinct animals.   JohnCub 14:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a map like that for Pleistocene animals. Google Holmesina and you'll probably find it. The only problem is that some of them are not shown. Metalraptor (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map idea 

message: We really need to get started on changing all of the ground sloth family pages from redirects into their own articles.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a more worrisome problem in the Families by inclusion and exclusion of sloth families that do not reflect the current view of slothologists.  Much of this stems from blindly following McKenna & Bell.  For example, Scelidotheridae is generally not considered to be a family but is a subfamily of Mylodontidae (Scelidotherinae), which sometimes includes the subfamily Lestodoninae of Webb (1989).   Nothrotheriidae is gaining ground as a distinct family as well.  See McDonald (1987) and Gaudin (2004) for a more thorough review. Doc Sloth (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: To that end, how does one change Megalonyx to stop redirecting to ground sloth? Doc Sloth (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just edit the page, so that it no longer includes the redirect instruction. (That is to say: search for "Megalonyx", then, after WP redirects you to Ground Sloth, click on the link to the actual Megalonyx page where it says "redirected from...". Then edit that accordingly). Anaxial (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Doc Sloth (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Families Redirect

message: I've seen articles discussing the effects of the extinction of giant ground sloths on various plant species that benefitted from the sloth's presence in the form of seed distribution.  I would like to request for someone to add this information if possible.  Cazort (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, someone definitely should Metalraptor (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to plant species

message: Yes to all split proposals. This is a natural. Umbertoumm (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We definitely need to split the articles up. No question there. Metalraptor (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I boldly created a page for Megalonychidae,  though it was via a cut and past of the text here so it will need some tweaking to reflect the modern sloth members.--Kevmin (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Split proposals

message: I'm not sure how to add a new footnote myself, but the statement "nearly every good specimen has been described as a different species" is cited in "Pleistocene Mammals of North America by Björn Kurtén, Elaine Anderson (Columbia University Press, 1980),  as being from page 216 of Hirschfeld, S.E., and Webb, S.D.  1968. Plio-Pleistocene megalonychild sloths of North America.  Bulletin of the Florida State Museum of Biological Science 12(5):213-96  --Anansii (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add the footnote by entering the following, after the comment being cited:

Replacing xxx and yyy with the relevant details. Anaxial (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Who said?

message: The text contains two contradictory statements in regards to the phylogeny.  In the "Megatheriidae" section, the first sentence says Megatheriidae and Megalonychidae together form the infraorder Megatheria.  In the "Nothrotheriidae" section, the first sentence says Megatheriidae and Northrotheriidae together form the superfamily Megatheroidea.  I'm not an expert in sloths, but I'm going to go ahead and alter this to say that all three families belong in the infraorder Megatheria.
199.76.151.208 (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cladistics

message: Based on the activity on the Talk page, this article hasn't received a lot of attention in several years.  I have a request, though.  I am interested in ground sloth biology, but, like most extinct animals of South America, there are serious accessibility problems with data on sloths.  One thing that bothers me is that there is virtually no accessible information anywhere that compares and contrasts the different sloth families.  On this page, nothing at all is stated about the biology of any family: it only mentions if and when they appear in North America and some random anecdotes about what some paleontologists at some point speculated.  It would be really helpful if somebody could provide some information about what distinguishes, e.g., megalonychids from megatheriids.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennesseellum (talk • contribs) 01:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you post requests at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, some Wikipedians may be able to get access to those pages for you.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article may also be a problem because "ground sloth" is a paraphyletic group, like Saber-toothed cat, and there should therefore not be a taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloth families 

message: Should there maybe an artists interpretation of what the ground sloth looked like? It would be good to have an idea of what they looked like in life, which is hard for a layperson like me when just looking at their skeleton
123.243.215.92 (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Artists interpretation?

message: If we're going to have this section, would it be at all too much to ask for if its proponents could care to elaborate on discussing how ground sloths and their public perception have impacted "popular culture," and not leave it as a trivial laundry list of "spot the monster of the week" appearances?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ground sloth. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031206051103/http://www.beringia.com/02/02maina1.html to http://www.beringia.com/02/02maina1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040206222938/http://www.tarpits.org/education/guide/flora/sloth.html to http://www.tarpits.org/education/guide/flora/sloth.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031206051103/http://www.beringia.com/02/02maina1.html to http://www.beringia.com/02/02maina1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article says that Clovis points were 'carved'. Apparently the writer knows nothing about flintknapping. You can't 'carve' flint, obsidian, and other similar stones with the materials peoples with neolithic technologies had access to. These points were rather pressure-flaked after the initial percussion used to prepare the cobbles to produce large blades from which the smaller finished products were produced. This is true espec~~ially of the long central fluting running down the length of the Clovis point from the tang to the tip. ~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:89:C701:9190:B84B:5090:2420:8E9D (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunting weapons