Talk:Mammal classification

message: Where does Paleoparadoxia fit in?
 
Thanks, 
Scotty
:Isn't it a desmostylian? Ucucha (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paleoparadoxia

message: I think among the biggest holes left on the page after Ucucha's removal of his taxonomy is that none currently posted here apply the proposals by Luo et al. (2002), which is really having a big impact on mammal classification - particularly pertaining to fossils.   Unfortunately that paper (although long) doesn't go into a great deal of detail.  I thought Ucucha's taxonomy applied that nicely.  --Aranae 22:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has rules like WP:NOR. I think my classification was a bit too much of original research (and I've found out it was simply wrong at some points). I understand your concern, but I don't know what could be done to it. Ucucha (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Luo et al. (2002)

message: I propose that this article be split in four: a new article for each classification scheme.  Anything left over could be merged back into Mammal.  My reasons are as follows.
#length (Presently the article is 48 kilobytes long.)
#ease of comprehension (We've got four long lists: easy to forget which one you're in.)
#potential for expansion (Divided these new articles might stand a better chance of being developed.)
Jimp 01:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section in mammal is already a bit large and it would be counterproductive to move anything back there.  What if we reduced that section to only include clades above order (except for the classification system used in related articles, which should retain the list of orders), reduce this page to order level taxa, above order level and incertae sedis taxa that can't be assigned to an order, and then move the lists that go to family to pages of their own?  --Aranae 21:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: I delisted this article because it is not "well-written"; it has far too many bulleted lists. joturner 23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted Good Article

message: *Monotremes
*Marsupials (I thought they were combined)
*Carnivores
*Pennipeds (I thought they were separate from carnivores)
*Perssodactyls
*Artiodactyls
*Primates
*Rodents
*Lagomrophs
*Bats
*Insectivores
*Edentates/Xantherans
*Cetaceans
*Sirenians
*Probiscidians
*Pangolins
*Aardvarks
*Flying Lemurs
*Hyraxes
*Tree Shrews
*Elephant Shrews
Also aren't mongooses in the civet family, red pandas in the raccoon family and skunks in the weasel family? Aren't humans and great apes in different families and lorises and bushbabies in the same family? Aren't monkeys split into four families: Old World, New World, marmosets and tamarins?61.230.78.55 08:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's obsolete, very obsolete. The answer to all your questions is: no. Ucucha (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Textbooks are often very out of date. The division of the marsupials in five separate orders, for example, has taken place in the early nineties and has since been accepted in the scientific community, but still many books treat them as one order. Ucucha (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In this case, I think there is. I can think of no recent scientific source that does not recognize the seven (not five, my mistake, sorry) marsupial orders. In other cases (for example the Afrosoricida), however, there indeed seems to be no consensus. Ucucha (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unlisted Classification

message: The said "classification system used in related articles" is not used in other articles. Other articles use Euarchonta insead of Archonta, and most other articles don't use Ungulata. Many group elephant shrews with ardvarks. Others group pangolins with carnivores. anonymous 17:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I started this page I just copied the information from Mammal.  I had been trying to convince the comunity that the mammalian taxonomy used in wikipedia was basically nonsensical (Ucucha tried also), but had no luck.  Right now taxonomy of mammals here in wikipedia ranges from cutting edge (e.g. Eupleridae), outdated (Artiodactyla and Cetacea as separate orders), to simply made up (Eutheria as a subclass?).  There seems to be a slow updating of the articles, certainly since this page was created.  What's used in wikipedia now still needs a lot of work but is certainly better than what was here when this article was started.  Please feel free to make those improvements here.  --Aranae 17:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification system used in related articles

message: This "talk" page contains extensive discussion about how to clear up the article, which I agree is confused. I suggest that the first step is for the article to admit at the beginning that the situation actually is confused:
* There are at least 3 main approaches: Linnean, with corrections and extensions; fossil-based phylogeny; molecular phylogeny.
* There are plenty of controversies within fossil-based phylogeny and molecular phylogeny, and the mere existence of 2 phylogenetic approaches is a controversy in its own right.
Hence I would also give up trying to produce a "standard Wikipedia classification":
* It is bound to clash with other published classifications or partial classifications, some of which appear in textbooks, library books and reputable "popular science" magazines.
* I don't see how it's practical to enforce a "standard Wikipedia classification" across Wikipedia, since some contributors will be adherents of other schemes and some articles cannot avoid being based on other schemes, for example the mammaliformes article is based on one particular scheme for classifying fossils which appear to be ancestral to or close to the ancestors of modern mammals.
So the article should also point out that, because there is no recognized standard classification, Wikipedia articles may take different approaches to classification of particular groups of mammals.
After that, I'd order the main sections as follows:
* "Linnean" classification (extended and corrected). Should be first as it's the one on which most ordinary speech and popular writing are based.
* Fossil-based phylogeny should come 2nd, as it's based on visible features (bones) and is the one most paleontologists prefer. Needs to explain the ideas behind a phylogenetic classification (probably linking to cladistics) and make clear where there are major controversies, different schools, etc.
* Molecular phylogeny, with brief explanation and link to a main article on molecular phylogeny and with notes on points which are controversial either within molecular phylogeny or between molecular and fossil-based phylogeny.
Any phylogenetic trees presented should carry warnings, e.g. "this is our best attempt at a consensus view but many controversies are unresolved."
I would also remove most of the details from the mammal article, possibly retaining only a broad-brush "Linnean" classification with a comment that many scientists prefer other approaches and a link to "mmal classification".Philcha 14:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to make the confusion clear

message: This article is pretty confusing. It needs cleanup 84.13.94.105 (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: Under Molecular classification: "The Xenarthra … diverged from the Boreoeutheria …"
This seems to contradict the placement of Xenarthra alongside Afrotheria in Boreoeutheria's sister taxon (Atlantogenata).  Or am I missing something?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntobey (talk • contribs) 02:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is currently no consensus in molecular studies about which two of Afrotheria, Xenarthra, and Boreoeutheria are more closely related. Most likely, the three diverged nearly simultaneously. Ucucha 02:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the section so that it no longer mentions the proposed clade Atlantogenta, but rather the three well-supported groups.--Animalparty-- (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlantogenta: contradiction 

message: "Many earlier ideas have been completely abandoned by modern taxonomists, among these are the idea that bats are related to birds or that humans represent a completely distinct group."
I removed this sentence because its location seemed to tie it in to the previous sentence, as if Linneaus thought this. He was an early taxonomist who got rid of some old ideas, though. The removed sentence not only leads the reader to misinformation, it is not sourced. Someone reverted the removal and returned it to the article, saying the information is "valid and reasonable," but an encyclopedia should be sourced, not what individuals consider reasonable, particularly when it gives the mpression of supporting incorrect information. MicroPaLeo (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored and clarified, as well as added a note for a lack of citation. Note, though, that the rest of the lead has no citations, either. Should we remove that all? No. We don't remove it just because of that. We flag it and note it and go search for supporting sources or, when we find sources that show the information is incorrect, we adjust it as needed. The fact is, many pre-Linnaean taxonomists did relate birds and bats, and did put humans in a separate category. I don't think your read that the lead was saying that Linnaeus did was reasonable, but I've adjusted it to be clear that he did not. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I will also note that per style guidelines, the lead of an article generally should not have citations in it at all.  The facts should be cited in the body of the article rather then the lead.--Kevmin § 17:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My read was reasonable, as Linneaus is a prominent early taxonomist and the sentence did not clarify that it was not speaking of Linneaus. Generally the information is cited elsewhere in the article, but this information did not appear elsewhere, and it should be elaborated and cited later on, but, as it is neither, it needs the citation attached where it is, in the lead. It probably should not be in the lead, if it is not developed elsewhere, but, in this case, the sentence should be fully developed later in the article. The current rewrite will work temporarily. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linneaus did not think bats were birds  

message: This taxonomy has horses closer to bats than to deer. The taxonomy on the mammal page show horses and deer closer to each other than to bats. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted in the article that no classification system is universally accepted. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  taxonomy contradiction 

message: According to everything I looked up about mirorder and everything I looked up about Primatomorpha; Primatomorpha is a mirorder.  It definitely can’t be a class; the class is Mammalia.  Compare the Wikipedia articles about Mirorder and Primatomorpha.  Also their Wiktionary entries.  Or just Google them. Eldin raigmore (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit to make it a class was vandalism. That molecular classification is not clearly sourced, so best to avoid Mirorder and stick to clade or unranked.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primatomorpha Clade are not a class.  They may be a mirorder. 

message: The chart at the top right shows Cetacea and Artiodactyla as separate, when Cetacea is an infra-order of Artiodactyla. This immediately makes the breakdown flawed. Strawberrymilc (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with the classification breakdown. 

message: Is the mammal species pie chart accurate? It seems to indicate that the order Soricomorpha contains more species than the order Primates, but the individual articles for those orders would indicate that there are more species in order Primates than in order Soricomorpha. Minor detail I know but might as well be as accurate as possible. Andyharbor (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The chart is based on MSW3 (see original at :File:Mammal_species_pie_chart.png) so was probably accurate in 2005. Soricomorpha doesn't give numbers, but there are nearly 400 shrews (Soracidae). The primate article gives a range of 376–524 species. The chart could do with updating using the MDD numbers and orders. There is a template for s. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I took an initial crack at this. Values are percentages (that threw me at first). I copied the colors from the old chart, but we have more divisions now so we are missing 6 colors. Feel free to adjust as needed.... - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammal Species Pie Chart