Talk:Dentition

message: I believe that there are no molars in "milk" teeth - only premolars. The molars erupt at a later date. Is this the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.230.17 (talk) 26 May 2007
:: in milk dentition pre molars are absent and molars are present  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.252.44.17 (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Premolars vs Molars

message: I found a table on the internet from a good source that seems to have the dentition patterns of all the mammals of North America.
#Is this a good place to put such a list?
#Can I put something like that from a webpage into wikipedia? 
##Do I need to reference where I got it?  
##Do I need to paraphrase the text part that lists the names of the species?
-Crunchy Numbers 03:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) From what I gather is on the table, yes. (2) Yes, if the webpage is a reliable source. (2a) Yes, reference would be helpful. (2b) Paraphrasing would be better and perhaps mandatory to avoid copyright issues, though prose would be preferred to mere lists. I am interested to see this webpage. - Dozenist talk 03:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it meets the reliable source criteria. I prefer not to put the link here now that I see the author says no one can use his information anywhere else on the web. 
What I could do is start with one species from each dentition configuration and find a reliable source that verifies for each, hopefully for more than one at a time. Then I could start a table here with that.  Other species could be added to the table as they are found.  He doesn't own the information after all.
We could also have tables for mammals from the rest of the world. 
Email me if you would like to see the link. I tried to send it to you but couldn't.
-Crunchy Numbers 04:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of dentition patterns of North American mammals 

message: It is more accurate to say that the primitive, rather than the maximum, dental formula for placental mammals is 3/3 1/1 4/4 3/3.  Cetaceans, for example, frequently have many more teeth than the "maximum" referred to in the current verbage.  In a similar way, we should be sure to say that the primitive dental formula for marsupials is 5/4 1/1 3/3 4/4. Tomwithanh 05:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dental Formulae 

message: The citations are given adjacent to the dental formula for some animals. But these may create chaos and confusions as it may be thought that the number given to citations are a part of dental formula. This is not much felt in electronic mode, but in printable version, it creates very big problem. Look at the way citations and dental formula combines as if they where a single formula http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dentition&printable=yes. Shouldn't we need additional column or alternative way for keeping citations and formula apart from each other. (Please not that people with little knowledge about dental formula also come to Wikipedia for learning and to them this can definitely create problems.)Valchemishnuʘ 17:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will Citations adjacent to dental formula create confusions? 

message: About the dental formulae listed, I assume that whoever originally gave the info was referring to the eruption sequence on the bottom jaw, correct? Or is something missing?RuneMan3 (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dental Eruption Sequence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dentition. 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/20060824022120/http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/pregastric/dentalanat.html to http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/pregastric/dentalanat.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) 00:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I found this in the article: (di^2-dc^1-dm^2) / (di_2-dc_1-dm_2) \times 2 =20. This can also be written as . Superscript and subscript denote upper and lower jaw, i.e. do not indicate mathematical operations; the numbers are the count of the teeth of each type. The dashes (-) in the formula are likewise not mathematical operators, but spacers
I changed it to this: (di^2\text{-}dc^1\text{-}dm^2) / (di_2\text{-}dc_1\text{-}dm_2) \times 2 =20. This can also be written as . Superscript and subscript denote upper and lower jaw, i.e. do not indicate mathematical operations; the numbers are the count of the teeth of each type. The dashes (-) in the formula are likewise not mathematical operators, but spacers
Notice that it says "the dashes", and then what it shows in parentheses is a hyphen, not a minus sign. Nonetheless where the formula was displayed, twice, what was shown was a minus sign, not a hyphen.
: 
Contrast the two:
: 
\begin{align} & (di^2-dc^1-dm^2) / (di_2-dc_1-dm_2) \times 2 =20 \\[10pt]
& (di^2\text{-}dc^1\text{-}dm^2) / (di_2\text{-}dc_1\text{-}dm_2) \times 2 =20
\end{align}
A callous indifference to this distinction is seen appallingly often in Wikipedia articles (but usually it's in non-TeX notation and people use hyphens instead of minus signs, writing, for example 5-3 instead of 5 − 3). Michael Hardy (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting notation