Talk:Gondwanatheria

message: Can't we simply make this an order? I can't imagine any order of which it could reasonably be considered a suborder. Ucucha See Mammal Taxonomy 07:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: If I'm not mistaken, none of these are known from anything other than teeth. Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that? In its current shape the article unwittingly implies that a great deal more is understood about these than likely is... Circéus (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also up to five jaws, but the assignment of three of those to Gondwanatheria is controversial. I have added a sentence to the article; I plan to rewrite it fully once I'm done with the other gondwanathere articles. Ucucha 20:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was really just asking to make sure adding such a fact wouldn't have been actually incorrect. I quickly surveyed the daughter articles, but they themselves aren't always clear... Thanks for the quick answer. Circéus (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Material

message: The tone of the article is rather unencyclopedic.--172.164.5.226 (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gondwanatheria. 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/20160111195520/http://paleofile.com/ to http://www.paleofile.com/
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) 21:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Someone needs to fix this so Gondwanatheria can be classified as mammals since it says they are.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarsath3 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article as saying that Gondwanatheria may be mammals, or again they may not be. It's not clear that a consensus can be drawn any closer that Cynodontia incertae sedis, as (implicitly) in the taxobox. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix this 

message: I saw contradicting answers on different Wikipedia pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarsath3 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the article because of this. A paper from last year says they belong to Haramiyida, outside Mammalia proper, rather than Multituberculates (which are Mammals), but the latest paper is not necessarily the correct one.JamesFox (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were Gondwanatheres mammals? 

message: I've been looking around to try and explain the Hypsodont teeth of some members.
Typically this is associated with grasses, with the main reason being their high silica content, however Koenigswald et al. (1999) mentioned that at the time grasses weren't known and likely not common in southern South America. They instead came to the conclusion of it being a burrowing or semi-aquatic species.
Horsetails are known for being silica rich (possibly not quite as much as grasses are), so I was wondering if there is potential plausibility for it to have been a major food source for at least a few species. They are broadly present at the time, but dinosaurs didn't seem to need hypsodonty to handle them.
*
Thylaco (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibility of Horsetails being a part of this groups diet?