Talk:Mammal

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

text: Fact?: Francis of Assisi do speak with animals.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloud forest (talk • contribs) 08:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can mammals talk? 

message: Good day! Please take part in the debate and votation. Thank you,Cloud forest (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of mammal species]] at Article for deletion (AfD) 

message: Cloud forest (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: He´s a better candidate than Nixon. Cloud forest (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: There´s a picture of him.Cloud forest (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don´t you miss Francis von Assisi in the arrticle? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Image changed without discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looks good!Somatochlora (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cladistics sentence in lead 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Proposal to make the main image more diverse 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "President Nixon" What the Heck ??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Numbers under the pie chart of species are wrong 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Taxobox error 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Parent Taxon 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Birds are reptiles? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  “Exponential” 

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  Plantdrew (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Hairy beast]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: ("Companion" almost sounds euphemistic.) 2601:647:4D7F:5B55:34DB:A579:6911:C615 (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change companion to property?