Question: Which new concept has greatly taken over Simpsons much debated theoretical systematization?

Answer: cladistics

George Gaylord Simpson's "Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" (AMNH Bulletin v. 85, 1945) was the original source for the taxonomy listed here. Simpson laid out a systematics of mammal origins and relationships that was universally taught until the end of the 20th century. <hl> Since Simpson's classification, the paleontological record has been recalibrated, and the intervening years have seen much debate and progress concerning the theoretical underpinnings of systematization itself, partly through the new concept of cladistics . <hl> Though field work gradually made Simpson's classification outdated, it remained the closest thing to an official classification of mammals.

George Gaylord Simpson's "Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" (AMNH Bulletin v. 85, 1945) was the original source for the taxonomy listed here. Simpson laid out a systematics of mammal origins and relationships that was universally taught until the end of the 20th century. Since Simpson's classification, the paleontological record has been recalibrated, and the intervening years have seen much debate and progress concerning the theoretical underpinnings of systematization itself, partly through the new concept of <hl> cladistics <hl>. Though field work gradually made Simpson's classification outdated, it remained the closest thing to an official classification of mammals.

Since Simpson's classification, the paleontological record has been recalibrated, and the intervening years have seen much debate and progress concerning the theoretical underpinnings of systematization itself, partly through the new concept of <hl> cladistics <hl> .

question: Which new concept has greatly taken over Simpsons much debated theoretical systematization?, context: George Gaylord Simpson's "Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" (AMNH Bulletin v. 85, 1945) was the original source for the taxonomy listed here. Simpson laid out a systematics of mammal origins and relationships that was universally taught until the end of the 20th century. Since Simpson's classification, the paleontological record has been recalibrated, and the intervening years have seen much debate and progress concerning the theoretical underpinnings of systematization itself, partly through the new concept of cladistics. Though field work gradually made Simpson's classification outdated, it remained the closest thing to an official classification of mammals.


Question: In 1997 who revised the classification of mammals?

Answer: Malcolm C. McKenna and Susan K. Bell

<hl> In 1997, the mammals were comprehensively revised by Malcolm C. McKenna and Susan K. Bell , which has resulted in the McKenna/Bell classification. <hl> Their 1997 book, Classification of Mammals above the Species Level, is the most comprehensive work to date on the systematics, relationships, and occurrences of all mammal taxa, living and extinct, down through the rank of genus, though recent molecular genetic data challenge several of the higher level groupings. The authors worked together as paleontologists at the American Museum of Natural History, New York. McKenna inherited the project from Simpson and, with Bell, constructed a completely updated hierarchical system, covering living and extinct taxa that reflects the historical genealogy of Mammalia.

In 1997, the mammals were comprehensively revised by <hl> Malcolm C. McKenna and Susan K. Bell <hl>, which has resulted in the McKenna/Bell classification. Their 1997 book, Classification of Mammals above the Species Level, is the most comprehensive work to date on the systematics, relationships, and occurrences of all mammal taxa, living and extinct, down through the rank of genus, though recent molecular genetic data challenge several of the higher level groupings. The authors worked together as paleontologists at the American Museum of Natural History, New York. McKenna inherited the project from Simpson and, with Bell, constructed a completely updated hierarchical system, covering living and extinct taxa that reflects the historical genealogy of Mammalia.

In 1997, the mammals were comprehensively revised by <hl> Malcolm C. McKenna and Susan K. Bell <hl> , which has resulted in the McKenna/Bell classification.

question: In 1997 who revised the classification of mammals?, context: In 1997, the mammals were comprehensively revised by Malcolm C. McKenna and Susan K. Bell, which has resulted in the McKenna/Bell classification. Their 1997 book, Classification of Mammals above the Species Level, is the most comprehensive work to date on the systematics, relationships, and occurrences of all mammal taxa, living and extinct, down through the rank of genus, though recent molecular genetic data challenge several of the higher level groupings. The authors worked together as paleontologists at the American Museum of Natural History, New York. McKenna inherited the project from Simpson and, with Bell, constructed a completely updated hierarchical system, covering living and extinct taxa that reflects the historical genealogy of Mammalia.


Question: Where did the two authors work together as paleontologist?

Answer: American Museum of Natural History

In 1997, the mammals were comprehensively revised by Malcolm C. McKenna and Susan K. Bell, which has resulted in the McKenna/Bell classification. Their 1997 book, Classification of Mammals above the Species Level, is the most comprehensive work to date on the systematics, relationships, and occurrences of all mammal taxa, living and extinct, down through the rank of genus, though recent molecular genetic data challenge several of the higher level groupings. <hl> The authors worked together as paleontologists at the American Museum of Natural History , New York. <hl> McKenna inherited the project from Simpson and, with Bell, constructed a completely updated hierarchical system, covering living and extinct taxa that reflects the historical genealogy of Mammalia.

In 1997, the mammals were comprehensively revised by Malcolm C. McKenna and Susan K. Bell, which has resulted in the McKenna/Bell classification. Their 1997 book, Classification of Mammals above the Species Level, is the most comprehensive work to date on the systematics, relationships, and occurrences of all mammal taxa, living and extinct, down through the rank of genus, though recent molecular genetic data challenge several of the higher level groupings. The authors worked together as paleontologists at the <hl> American Museum of Natural History <hl>, New York. McKenna inherited the project from Simpson and, with Bell, constructed a completely updated hierarchical system, covering living and extinct taxa that reflects the historical genealogy of Mammalia.

The authors worked together as paleontologists at the <hl> American Museum of Natural History <hl> , New York.

question: Where did the two authors work together as paleontologist?, context: In 1997, the mammals were comprehensively revised by Malcolm C. McKenna and Susan K. Bell, which has resulted in the McKenna/Bell classification. Their 1997 book, Classification of Mammals above the Species Level, is the most comprehensive work to date on the systematics, relationships, and occurrences of all mammal taxa, living and extinct, down through the rank of genus, though recent molecular genetic data challenge several of the higher level groupings. The authors worked together as paleontologists at the American Museum of Natural History, New York. McKenna inherited the project from Simpson and, with Bell, constructed a completely updated hierarchical system, covering living and extinct taxa that reflects the historical genealogy of Mammalia.


Question: From whom did McKenna inherit the project from?

Answer: Simpson

In 1997, the mammals were comprehensively revised by Malcolm C. McKenna and Susan K. Bell, which has resulted in the McKenna/Bell classification. Their 1997 book, Classification of Mammals above the Species Level, is the most comprehensive work to date on the systematics, relationships, and occurrences of all mammal taxa, living and extinct, down through the rank of genus, though recent molecular genetic data challenge several of the higher level groupings. The authors worked together as paleontologists at the American Museum of Natural History, New York. <hl> McKenna inherited the project from Simpson and, with Bell, constructed a completely updated hierarchical system, covering living and extinct taxa that reflects the historical genealogy of Mammalia. <hl>

In 1997, the mammals were comprehensively revised by Malcolm C. McKenna and Susan K. Bell, which has resulted in the McKenna/Bell classification. Their 1997 book, Classification of Mammals above the Species Level, is the most comprehensive work to date on the systematics, relationships, and occurrences of all mammal taxa, living and extinct, down through the rank of genus, though recent molecular genetic data challenge several of the higher level groupings. The authors worked together as paleontologists at the American Museum of Natural History, New York. McKenna inherited the project from <hl> Simpson <hl> and, with Bell, constructed a completely updated hierarchical system, covering living and extinct taxa that reflects the historical genealogy of Mammalia.

question: From whom did McKenna inherit the project from?, context: In 1997, the mammals were comprehensively revised by Malcolm C. McKenna and Susan K. Bell, which has resulted in the McKenna/Bell classification. Their 1997 book, Classification of Mammals above the Species Level, is the most comprehensive work to date on the systematics, relationships, and occurrences of all mammal taxa, living and extinct, down through the rank of genus, though recent molecular genetic data challenge several of the higher level groupings. The authors worked together as paleontologists at the American Museum of Natural History, New York. McKenna inherited the project from Simpson and, with Bell, constructed a completely updated hierarchical system, covering living and extinct taxa that reflects the historical genealogy of Mammalia.


Question: Through Molecular studies, what was used to suggest new relationships among mammal families?

Answer: DNA analysis

<hl> Molecular studies based on DNA analysis have suggested new relationships among mammal families over the last few years. <hl> Most of these findings have been independently validated by retrotransposon presence/absence data. Classification systems based on molecular studies reveal three major groups or lineages of placental mammals- Afrotheria, Xenarthra, and Boreoeutheria- which diverged from early common ancestors in the Cretaceous. The relationships between these three lineages is contentious, and all three possible different hypotheses have been proposed with respect to which group is basal with respect to other placentals. These hypotheses are Atlantogenata (basal Boreoeutheria), Epitheria (basal Xenarthra), and Exafroplacentalia (basal Afrotheria). Boreoeutheria in turn contains two major lineages- Euarchontoglires and Laurasiatheria.

Molecular studies based on <hl> DNA analysis <hl> have suggested new relationships among mammal families over the last few years. Most of these findings have been independently validated by retrotransposon presence/absence data. Classification systems based on molecular studies reveal three major groups or lineages of placental mammals- Afrotheria, Xenarthra, and Boreoeutheria- which diverged from early common ancestors in the Cretaceous. The relationships between these three lineages is contentious, and all three possible different hypotheses have been proposed with respect to which group is basal with respect to other placentals. These hypotheses are Atlantogenata (basal Boreoeutheria), Epitheria (basal Xenarthra), and Exafroplacentalia (basal Afrotheria). Boreoeutheria in turn contains two major lineages- Euarchontoglires and Laurasiatheria.

question: Through Molecular studies, what was used to suggest new relationships among mammal families?, context: Molecular studies based on DNA analysis have suggested new relationships among mammal families over the last few years. Most of these findings have been independently validated by retrotransposon presence/absence data. Classification systems based on molecular studies reveal three major groups or lineages of placental mammals- Afrotheria, Xenarthra, and Boreoeutheria- which diverged from early common ancestors in the Cretaceous. The relationships between these three lineages is contentious, and all three possible different hypotheses have been proposed with respect to which group is basal with respect to other placentals. These hypotheses are Atlantogenata (basal Boreoeutheria), Epitheria (basal Xenarthra), and Exafroplacentalia (basal Afrotheria). Boreoeutheria in turn contains two major lineages- Euarchontoglires and Laurasiatheria.


Question: During these Molecular studies, which three major groups of mammals shared a common ancestors from the Cretaceous period?

Answer: Afrotheria, Xenarthra, and Boreoeutheria

Molecular studies based on DNA analysis have suggested new relationships among mammal families over the last few years. Most of these findings have been independently validated by retrotransposon presence/absence data. <hl> Classification systems based on molecular studies reveal three major groups or lineages of placental mammals- Afrotheria, Xenarthra, and Boreoeutheria - which diverged from early common ancestors in the Cretaceous. <hl> The relationships between these three lineages is contentious, and all three possible different hypotheses have been proposed with respect to which group is basal with respect to other placentals. These hypotheses are Atlantogenata (basal Boreoeutheria), Epitheria (basal Xenarthra), and Exafroplacentalia (basal Afrotheria). Boreoeutheria in turn contains two major lineages- Euarchontoglires and Laurasiatheria.

Molecular studies based on DNA analysis have suggested new relationships among mammal families over the last few years. Most of these findings have been independently validated by retrotransposon presence/absence data. Classification systems based on molecular studies reveal three major groups or lineages of placental mammals- <hl> Afrotheria, Xenarthra, and Boreoeutheria <hl>- which diverged from early common ancestors in the Cretaceous. The relationships between these three lineages is contentious, and all three possible different hypotheses have been proposed with respect to which group is basal with respect to other placentals. These hypotheses are Atlantogenata (basal Boreoeutheria), Epitheria (basal Xenarthra), and Exafroplacentalia (basal Afrotheria). Boreoeutheria in turn contains two major lineages- Euarchontoglires and Laurasiatheria.

Classification systems based on molecular studies reveal three major groups or lineages of placental mammals- <hl> Afrotheria, Xenarthra, and Boreoeutheria <hl> - which diverged from early common ancestors in the Cretaceous.

question: During these Molecular studies, which three major groups of mammals shared a common ancestors from the Cretaceous period?, context: Molecular studies based on DNA analysis have suggested new relationships among mammal families over the last few years. Most of these findings have been independently validated by retrotransposon presence/absence data. Classification systems based on molecular studies reveal three major groups or lineages of placental mammals- Afrotheria, Xenarthra, and Boreoeutheria- which diverged from early common ancestors in the Cretaceous. The relationships between these three lineages is contentious, and all three possible different hypotheses have been proposed with respect to which group is basal with respect to other placentals. These hypotheses are Atlantogenata (basal Boreoeutheria), Epitheria (basal Xenarthra), and Exafroplacentalia (basal Afrotheria). Boreoeutheria in turn contains two major lineages- Euarchontoglires and Laurasiatheria.


Question: Afrotheria,Xenartha, and Boreoeutheria deprives from which two lineages?

Answer: Euarchontoglires and Laurasiatheria

Molecular studies based on DNA analysis have suggested new relationships among mammal families over the last few years. Most of these findings have been independently validated by retrotransposon presence/absence data. Classification systems based on molecular studies reveal three major groups or lineages of placental mammals- Afrotheria, Xenarthra, and Boreoeutheria- which diverged from early common ancestors in the Cretaceous. The relationships between these three lineages is contentious, and all three possible different hypotheses have been proposed with respect to which group is basal with respect to other placentals. These hypotheses are Atlantogenata (basal Boreoeutheria), Epitheria (basal Xenarthra), and Exafroplacentalia (basal Afrotheria). <hl> Boreoeutheria in turn contains two major lineages- Euarchontoglires and Laurasiatheria . <hl>

Molecular studies based on DNA analysis have suggested new relationships among mammal families over the last few years. Most of these findings have been independently validated by retrotransposon presence/absence data. Classification systems based on molecular studies reveal three major groups or lineages of placental mammals- Afrotheria, Xenarthra, and Boreoeutheria- which diverged from early common ancestors in the Cretaceous. The relationships between these three lineages is contentious, and all three possible different hypotheses have been proposed with respect to which group is basal with respect to other placentals. These hypotheses are Atlantogenata (basal Boreoeutheria), Epitheria (basal Xenarthra), and Exafroplacentalia (basal Afrotheria). Boreoeutheria in turn contains two major lineages- <hl> Euarchontoglires and Laurasiatheria <hl>.

Boreoeutheria in turn contains two major lineages- <hl> Euarchontoglires and Laurasiatheria <hl> .

question: Afrotheria,Xenartha, and Boreoeutheria deprives from which two lineages?, context: Molecular studies based on DNA analysis have suggested new relationships among mammal families over the last few years. Most of these findings have been independently validated by retrotransposon presence/absence data. Classification systems based on molecular studies reveal three major groups or lineages of placental mammals- Afrotheria, Xenarthra, and Boreoeutheria- which diverged from early common ancestors in the Cretaceous. The relationships between these three lineages is contentious, and all three possible different hypotheses have been proposed with respect to which group is basal with respect to other placentals. These hypotheses are Atlantogenata (basal Boreoeutheria), Epitheria (basal Xenarthra), and Exafroplacentalia (basal Afrotheria). Boreoeutheria in turn contains two major lineages- Euarchontoglires and Laurasiatheria.


Question: From which period did the first known amniotes arise from?

Answer: Carboniferous

<hl> The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late Carboniferous . <hl> They descended from earlier reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods, which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds. Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull.

The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late <hl> Carboniferous <hl>. They descended from earlier reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods, which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds. Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull.

The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late <hl> Carboniferous <hl> .

question: From which period did the first known amniotes arise from?, context: The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late Carboniferous. They descended from earlier reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods, which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds. Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull.


Question: From which group did amniotes descendents of?

Answer: reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods

The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late Carboniferous. <hl> They descended from earlier reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods , which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. <hl> Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds. Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull.

The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late Carboniferous. They descended from earlier <hl> reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods <hl>, which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds. Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull.

They descended from earlier <hl> reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods <hl> , which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants.

question: From which group did amniotes descendents of?, context: The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late Carboniferous. They descended from earlier reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods, which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds. Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull.


Question: Two important Amniotes lineages became distinct, what was the name of that distinction?

Answer: the synapsids

The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late Carboniferous. They descended from earlier reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods, which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. <hl> Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids , which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds. <hl> Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull.

The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late Carboniferous. They descended from earlier reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods, which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: <hl> the synapsids <hl>, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds. Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull.

Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: <hl> the synapsids <hl> , which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds.

question: Two important Amniotes lineages became distinct, what was the name of that distinction?, context: The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late Carboniferous. They descended from earlier reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods, which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds. Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull.


Question: Sauropsids would later include which other animals into its group?

Answer: turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds

The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late Carboniferous. They descended from earlier reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods, which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. <hl> Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds . <hl> Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull.

The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late Carboniferous. They descended from earlier reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods, which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include <hl> turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds <hl>. Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull.

Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include <hl> turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds <hl> .

question: Sauropsids would later include which other animals into its group?, context: The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late Carboniferous. They descended from earlier reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods, which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds. Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull.


Question: What is a distinct trait of Synapsids?

Answer: single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull

The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late Carboniferous. They descended from earlier reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods, which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds. <hl> Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull . <hl>

The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late Carboniferous. They descended from earlier reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods, which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds. Synapsids have a <hl> single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull <hl>.

Synapsids have a <hl> single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull <hl> .

question: What is a distinct trait of Synapsids?, context: The first amniotes apparently arose in the Late Carboniferous. They descended from earlier reptiliomorph amphibious tetrapods, which lived on land that was already inhabited by insects and other invertebrates as well as by ferns, mosses and other plants. Within a few million years, two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which would later include the common ancestor of the mammals; and the sauropsids, which would eventually come to include turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds. Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull.


Question: From which dinosaur group did Therapsids descend from?

Answer: pelycosaurs

<hl> Therapsids descended from pelycosaurs in the Middle Permian, about 265 million years ago, and became the dominant land vertebrates. <hl> They differ from basal eupelycosaurs in several features of the skull and jaws, including: larger temporal fenestrae and incisors which are equal in size. The therapsid lineage leading to mammals went through a series of stages, beginning with animals that were very like their pelycosaur ancestors and ending with probainognathian cynodonts, some of which could easily be mistaken for mammals. Those stages were characterized by:

Therapsids descended from <hl> pelycosaurs <hl> in the Middle Permian, about 265 million years ago, and became the dominant land vertebrates. They differ from basal eupelycosaurs in several features of the skull and jaws, including: larger temporal fenestrae and incisors which are equal in size. The therapsid lineage leading to mammals went through a series of stages, beginning with animals that were very like their pelycosaur ancestors and ending with probainognathian cynodonts, some of which could easily be mistaken for mammals. Those stages were characterized by:

question: From which dinosaur group did Therapsids descend from?, context: Therapsids descended from pelycosaurs in the Middle Permian, about 265 million years ago, and became the dominant land vertebrates. They differ from basal eupelycosaurs in several features of the skull and jaws, including: larger temporal fenestrae and incisors which are equal in size. The therapsid lineage leading to mammals went through a series of stages, beginning with animals that were very like their pelycosaur ancestors and ending with probainognathian cynodonts, some of which could easily be mistaken for mammals. Those stages were characterized by:


Question: Around what time did Therapsids become the dominant land animal?

Answer: 265 million years ago

<hl> Therapsids descended from pelycosaurs in the Middle Permian, about 265 million years ago , and became the dominant land vertebrates. <hl> They differ from basal eupelycosaurs in several features of the skull and jaws, including: larger temporal fenestrae and incisors which are equal in size. The therapsid lineage leading to mammals went through a series of stages, beginning with animals that were very like their pelycosaur ancestors and ending with probainognathian cynodonts, some of which could easily be mistaken for mammals. Those stages were characterized by:

Therapsids descended from pelycosaurs in the Middle Permian, about <hl> 265 million years ago <hl>, and became the dominant land vertebrates. They differ from basal eupelycosaurs in several features of the skull and jaws, including: larger temporal fenestrae and incisors which are equal in size. The therapsid lineage leading to mammals went through a series of stages, beginning with animals that were very like their pelycosaur ancestors and ending with probainognathian cynodonts, some of which could easily be mistaken for mammals. Those stages were characterized by:

Therapsids descended from pelycosaurs in the Middle Permian, about <hl> 265 million years ago <hl> , and became the dominant land vertebrates.

question: Around what time did Therapsids become the dominant land animal?, context: Therapsids descended from pelycosaurs in the Middle Permian, about 265 million years ago, and became the dominant land vertebrates. They differ from basal eupelycosaurs in several features of the skull and jaws, including: larger temporal fenestrae and incisors which are equal in size. The therapsid lineage leading to mammals went through a series of stages, beginning with animals that were very like their pelycosaur ancestors and ending with probainognathian cynodonts, some of which could easily be mistaken for mammals. Those stages were characterized by:


Question: At which group did Therapsids end with?

Answer: probainognathian cynodonts

Therapsids descended from pelycosaurs in the Middle Permian, about 265 million years ago, and became the dominant land vertebrates. They differ from basal eupelycosaurs in several features of the skull and jaws, including: larger temporal fenestrae and incisors which are equal in size. <hl> The therapsid lineage leading to mammals went through a series of stages, beginning with animals that were very like their pelycosaur ancestors and ending with probainognathian cynodonts , some of which could easily be mistaken for mammals. <hl> Those stages were characterized by:

Therapsids descended from pelycosaurs in the Middle Permian, about 265 million years ago, and became the dominant land vertebrates. They differ from basal eupelycosaurs in several features of the skull and jaws, including: larger temporal fenestrae and incisors which are equal in size. The therapsid lineage leading to mammals went through a series of stages, beginning with animals that were very like their pelycosaur ancestors and ending with <hl> probainognathian cynodonts <hl>, some of which could easily be mistaken for mammals. Those stages were characterized by:

The therapsid lineage leading to mammals went through a series of stages, beginning with animals that were very like their pelycosaur ancestors and ending with <hl> probainognathian cynodonts <hl> , some of which could easily be mistaken for mammals.

question: At which group did Therapsids end with?, context: Therapsids descended from pelycosaurs in the Middle Permian, about 265 million years ago, and became the dominant land vertebrates. They differ from basal eupelycosaurs in several features of the skull and jaws, including: larger temporal fenestrae and incisors which are equal in size. The therapsid lineage leading to mammals went through a series of stages, beginning with animals that were very like their pelycosaur ancestors and ending with probainognathian cynodonts, some of which could easily be mistaken for mammals. Those stages were characterized by:


Question: What was the name of extinction level event that ended the dominance of the carnivores among therapsids?

Answer: Permian–Triassic

<hl> The Permian–Triassic extinction event, which was a prolonged event due to the accumulation of several extinction pulses, ended the dominance of the carnivores among the therapsids. <hl> In the early Triassic, all the medium to large land carnivore niches were taken over by archosaurs which, over an extended period of time (35 million years), came to include the crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the dinosaurs. By the Jurassic, the dinosaurs had come to dominate the large terrestrial herbivore niches as well.

The <hl> Permian–Triassic <hl> extinction event, which was a prolonged event due to the accumulation of several extinction pulses, ended the dominance of the carnivores among the therapsids. In the early Triassic, all the medium to large land carnivore niches were taken over by archosaurs which, over an extended period of time (35 million years), came to include the crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the dinosaurs. By the Jurassic, the dinosaurs had come to dominate the large terrestrial herbivore niches as well.

question: What was the name of extinction level event that ended the dominance of the carnivores among therapsids?, context: The Permian–Triassic extinction event, which was a prolonged event due to the accumulation of several extinction pulses, ended the dominance of the carnivores among the therapsids. In the early Triassic, all the medium to large land carnivore niches were taken over by archosaurs which, over an extended period of time (35 million years), came to include the crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the dinosaurs. By the Jurassic, the dinosaurs had come to dominate the large terrestrial herbivore niches as well.


Question: During which time period did archosaurs begin to take over as the dominant carnivore?

Answer: Triassic

<hl> The Permian– Triassic extinction event, which was a prolonged event due to the accumulation of several extinction pulses, ended the dominance of the carnivores among the therapsids. <hl> In the early Triassic, all the medium to large land carnivore niches were taken over by archosaurs which, over an extended period of time (35 million years), came to include the crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the dinosaurs. By the Jurassic, the dinosaurs had come to dominate the large terrestrial herbivore niches as well.

The Permian–<hl> Triassic <hl> extinction event, which was a prolonged event due to the accumulation of several extinction pulses, ended the dominance of the carnivores among the therapsids. In the early Triassic, all the medium to large land carnivore niches were taken over by archosaurs which, over an extended period of time (35 million years), came to include the crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the dinosaurs. By the Jurassic, the dinosaurs had come to dominate the large terrestrial herbivore niches as well.

The Permian– <hl> Triassic <hl> extinction event, which was a prolonged event due to the accumulation of several extinction pulses, ended the dominance of the carnivores among the therapsids.

question: During which time period did archosaurs begin to take over as the dominant carnivore?, context: The Permian–Triassic extinction event, which was a prolonged event due to the accumulation of several extinction pulses, ended the dominance of the carnivores among the therapsids. In the early Triassic, all the medium to large land carnivore niches were taken over by archosaurs which, over an extended period of time (35 million years), came to include the crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the dinosaurs. By the Jurassic, the dinosaurs had come to dominate the large terrestrial herbivore niches as well.


Question: Which three groups did the early Triassic period consist of?

Answer: crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the dinosaurs

The Permian–Triassic extinction event, which was a prolonged event due to the accumulation of several extinction pulses, ended the dominance of the carnivores among the therapsids. <hl> In the early Triassic, all the medium to large land carnivore niches were taken over by archosaurs which, over an extended period of time (35 million years), came to include the crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the dinosaurs . <hl> By the Jurassic, the dinosaurs had come to dominate the large terrestrial herbivore niches as well.

The Permian–Triassic extinction event, which was a prolonged event due to the accumulation of several extinction pulses, ended the dominance of the carnivores among the therapsids. In the early Triassic, all the medium to large land carnivore niches were taken over by archosaurs which, over an extended period of time (35 million years), came to include the <hl> crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the dinosaurs <hl>. By the Jurassic, the dinosaurs had come to dominate the large terrestrial herbivore niches as well.

In the early Triassic, all the medium to large land carnivore niches were taken over by archosaurs which, over an extended period of time (35 million years), came to include the <hl> crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the dinosaurs <hl> .

question: Which three groups did the early Triassic period consist of?, context: The Permian–Triassic extinction event, which was a prolonged event due to the accumulation of several extinction pulses, ended the dominance of the carnivores among the therapsids. In the early Triassic, all the medium to large land carnivore niches were taken over by archosaurs which, over an extended period of time (35 million years), came to include the crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the dinosaurs. By the Jurassic, the dinosaurs had come to dominate the large terrestrial herbivore niches as well.


Question: During the Jurassic period which group came out as the most dominate for both carnivores and herbivores?

Answer: dinosaurs

The Permian–Triassic extinction event, which was a prolonged event due to the accumulation of several extinction pulses, ended the dominance of the carnivores among the therapsids. <hl> In the early Triassic, all the medium to large land carnivore niches were taken over by archosaurs which, over an extended period of time (35 million years), came to include the crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the dinosaurs . <hl> By the Jurassic, the dinosaurs had come to dominate the large terrestrial herbivore niches as well.

The Permian–Triassic extinction event, which was a prolonged event due to the accumulation of several extinction pulses, ended the dominance of the carnivores among the therapsids. In the early Triassic, all the medium to large land carnivore niches were taken over by archosaurs which, over an extended period of time (35 million years), came to include the crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the <hl> dinosaurs <hl>. By the Jurassic, the dinosaurs had come to dominate the large terrestrial herbivore niches as well.

In the early Triassic, all the medium to large land carnivore niches were taken over by archosaurs which, over an extended period of time (35 million years), came to include the crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the <hl> dinosaurs <hl> .

question: During the Jurassic period which group came out as the most dominate for both carnivores and herbivores?, context: The Permian–Triassic extinction event, which was a prolonged event due to the accumulation of several extinction pulses, ended the dominance of the carnivores among the therapsids. In the early Triassic, all the medium to large land carnivore niches were taken over by archosaurs which, over an extended period of time (35 million years), came to include the crocodylomorphs, the pterosaurs, and the dinosaurs. By the Jurassic, the dinosaurs had come to dominate the large terrestrial herbivore niches as well.


Question: What is the oldest know fossil among the Eutheria group?

Answer: shrewlike Juramaia sinensis

<hl> The oldest known fossil among the Eutheria ("true beasts") is the small shrewlike Juramaia sinensis , or "Jurassic mother from China", dated to 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic. <hl> A later eutherian, Eomaia, dated to 125 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous, possessed some features in common with the marsupials but not with the placentals, evidence that these features were present in the last common ancestor of the two groups but were later lost in the placental lineage. In particular:

The oldest known fossil among the Eutheria ("true beasts") is the small <hl> shrewlike Juramaia sinensis <hl>, or "Jurassic mother from China", dated to 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic. A later eutherian, Eomaia, dated to 125 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous, possessed some features in common with the marsupials but not with the placentals, evidence that these features were present in the last common ancestor of the two groups but were later lost in the placental lineage. In particular:

The oldest known fossil among the Eutheria ("true beasts") is the small <hl> shrewlike Juramaia sinensis <hl> , or "Jurassic mother from China", dated to 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic.

question: What is the oldest know fossil among the Eutheria group?, context: The oldest known fossil among the Eutheria ("true beasts") is the small shrewlike Juramaia sinensis, or "Jurassic mother from China", dated to 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic. A later eutherian, Eomaia, dated to 125 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous, possessed some features in common with the marsupials but not with the placentals, evidence that these features were present in the last common ancestor of the two groups but were later lost in the placental lineage. In particular:


Question: How long ago does oldest know fossil date back to?

Answer: 160 million years ago

<hl> The oldest known fossil among the Eutheria ("true beasts") is the small shrewlike Juramaia sinensis, or "Jurassic mother from China", dated to 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic. <hl> A later eutherian, Eomaia, dated to 125 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous, possessed some features in common with the marsupials but not with the placentals, evidence that these features were present in the last common ancestor of the two groups but were later lost in the placental lineage. In particular:

The oldest known fossil among the Eutheria ("true beasts") is the small shrewlike Juramaia sinensis, or "Jurassic mother from China", dated to <hl> 160 million years ago <hl> in the Late Jurassic. A later eutherian, Eomaia, dated to 125 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous, possessed some features in common with the marsupials but not with the placentals, evidence that these features were present in the last common ancestor of the two groups but were later lost in the placental lineage. In particular:

question: How long ago does oldest know fossil date back to?, context: The oldest known fossil among the Eutheria ("true beasts") is the small shrewlike Juramaia sinensis, or "Jurassic mother from China", dated to 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic. A later eutherian, Eomaia, dated to 125 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous, possessed some features in common with the marsupials but not with the placentals, evidence that these features were present in the last common ancestor of the two groups but were later lost in the placental lineage. In particular:


Question: In what time period did early animals share some features with marsupials?

Answer: 125 million years ago

The oldest known fossil among the Eutheria ("true beasts") is the small shrewlike Juramaia sinensis, or "Jurassic mother from China", dated to 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic. <hl> A later eutherian, Eomaia, dated to 125 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous, possessed some features in common with the marsupials but not with the placentals, evidence that these features were present in the last common ancestor of the two groups but were later lost in the placental lineage. <hl> In particular:

The oldest known fossil among the Eutheria ("true beasts") is the small shrewlike Juramaia sinensis, or "Jurassic mother from China", dated to 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic. A later eutherian, Eomaia, dated to <hl> 125 million years ago <hl> in the Early Cretaceous, possessed some features in common with the marsupials but not with the placentals, evidence that these features were present in the last common ancestor of the two groups but were later lost in the placental lineage. In particular:

question: In what time period did early animals share some features with marsupials?, context: The oldest known fossil among the Eutheria ("true beasts") is the small shrewlike Juramaia sinensis, or "Jurassic mother from China", dated to 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic. A later eutherian, Eomaia, dated to 125 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous, possessed some features in common with the marsupials but not with the placentals, evidence that these features were present in the last common ancestor of the two groups but were later lost in the placental lineage. In particular:


Question: Which lineage were some of these early marsupial features were lost?

Answer: placental

The oldest known fossil among the Eutheria ("true beasts") is the small shrewlike Juramaia sinensis, or "Jurassic mother from China", dated to 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic. <hl> A later eutherian, Eomaia, dated to 125 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous, possessed some features in common with the marsupials but not with the placental s, evidence that these features were present in the last common ancestor of the two groups but were later lost in the placental lineage. <hl> In particular:

The oldest known fossil among the Eutheria ("true beasts") is the small shrewlike Juramaia sinensis, or "Jurassic mother from China", dated to 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic. A later eutherian, Eomaia, dated to 125 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous, possessed some features in common with the marsupials but not with the <hl> placental <hl>s, evidence that these features were present in the last common ancestor of the two groups but were later lost in the placental lineage. In particular:

A later eutherian, Eomaia, dated to 125 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous, possessed some features in common with the marsupials but not with the <hl> placental <hl> s, evidence that these features were present in the last common ancestor of the two groups but were later lost in the placental lineage.

question: Which lineage were some of these early marsupial features were lost?, context: The oldest known fossil among the Eutheria ("true beasts") is the small shrewlike Juramaia sinensis, or "Jurassic mother from China", dated to 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic. A later eutherian, Eomaia, dated to 125 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous, possessed some features in common with the marsupials but not with the placentals, evidence that these features were present in the last common ancestor of the two groups but were later lost in the placental lineage. In particular:


Question: How long ago did most placental orders diverge from?

Answer: 100 to 85 million years ago

<hl> Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late Eocene through the Miocene. <hl> But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early Paleocene, after the extinction of the dinosaurs. In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around 55 million years ago. This tiny primate weighed 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) and could fit within a human palm.

Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about <hl> 100 to 85 million years ago <hl> and that modern families appeared in the period from the late Eocene through the Miocene. But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early Paleocene, after the extinction of the dinosaurs. In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around 55 million years ago. This tiny primate weighed 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) and could fit within a human palm.

question: How long ago did most placental orders diverge from?, context: Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late Eocene through the Miocene. But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early Paleocene, after the extinction of the dinosaurs. In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around 55 million years ago. This tiny primate weighed 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) and could fit within a human palm.


Question: Which two major time periods did placentals appear?

Answer: Eocene through the Miocene

<hl> Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late Eocene through the Miocene . <hl> But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early Paleocene, after the extinction of the dinosaurs. In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around 55 million years ago. This tiny primate weighed 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) and could fit within a human palm.

Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late <hl> Eocene through the Miocene <hl>. But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early Paleocene, after the extinction of the dinosaurs. In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around 55 million years ago. This tiny primate weighed 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) and could fit within a human palm.

Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late <hl> Eocene through the Miocene <hl> .

question: Which two major time periods did placentals appear?, context: Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late Eocene through the Miocene. But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early Paleocene, after the extinction of the dinosaurs. In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around 55 million years ago. This tiny primate weighed 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) and could fit within a human palm.


Question: Which time period did early highly undisputed fossils of placental mammals appear?

Answer: Paleocene

Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late Eocene through the Miocene. But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. <hl> The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early Paleocene , after the extinction of the dinosaurs. <hl> In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around 55 million years ago. This tiny primate weighed 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) and could fit within a human palm.

Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late Eocene through the Miocene. But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early <hl> Paleocene <hl>, after the extinction of the dinosaurs. In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around 55 million years ago. This tiny primate weighed 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) and could fit within a human palm.

The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early <hl> Paleocene <hl> , after the extinction of the dinosaurs.

question: Which time period did early highly undisputed fossils of placental mammals appear?, context: Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late Eocene through the Miocene. But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early Paleocene, after the extinction of the dinosaurs. In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around 55 million years ago. This tiny primate weighed 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) and could fit within a human palm.


Question: When is the earliest know primate thought to had exist?

Answer: 55 million years ago

Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late Eocene through the Miocene. But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early Paleocene, after the extinction of the dinosaurs. In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. <hl> The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around 55 million years ago . <hl> This tiny primate weighed 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) and could fit within a human palm.

Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late Eocene through the Miocene. But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early Paleocene, after the extinction of the dinosaurs. In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around <hl> 55 million years ago <hl>. This tiny primate weighed 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) and could fit within a human palm.

The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around <hl> 55 million years ago <hl> .

question: When is the earliest know primate thought to had exist?, context: Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late Eocene through the Miocene. But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early Paleocene, after the extinction of the dinosaurs. In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around 55 million years ago. This tiny primate weighed 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) and could fit within a human palm.


Question: How much did the first primate weigh?

Answer: 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce)

Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late Eocene through the Miocene. But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early Paleocene, after the extinction of the dinosaurs. In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around 55 million years ago. <hl> This tiny primate weighed 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) and could fit within a human palm. <hl>

Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late Eocene through the Miocene. But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early Paleocene, after the extinction of the dinosaurs. In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around 55 million years ago. This tiny primate weighed <hl> 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) <hl> and could fit within a human palm.

question: How much did the first primate weigh?, context: Recent molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that most placental orders diverged about 100 to 85 million years ago and that modern families appeared in the period from the late Eocene through the Miocene. But paleontologists object that no placental fossils have been found from before the end of the Cretaceous. The earliest undisputed fossils of placentals come from the early Paleocene, after the extinction of the dinosaurs. In particular, scientists have recently identified an early Paleocene animal named Protungulatum donnae as one of the first placental mammals. The earliest known ancestor of primates is Archicebus achilles from around 55 million years ago. This tiny primate weighed 20–30 grams (0.7–1.1 ounce) and could fit within a human palm.


Question: When is it believed that the earliest know hair was said to exist?

Answer: 164 million years ago

<hl> The earliest clear evidence of hair or fur is in fossils of Castorocauda, from 164 million years ago in the Middle Jurassic. <hl> In the 1950s, it was suggested that the foramina (passages) in the maxillae and premaxillae (bones in the front of the upper jaw) of cynodonts were channels which supplied blood vessels and nerves to vibrissae (whiskers) and so were evidence of hair or fur; it was soon pointed out, however, that foramina do not necessarily show that an animal had vibrissae, as the modern lizard Tupinambis has foramina that are almost identical to those found in the nonmammalian cynodont Thrinaxodon. Popular sources, nevertheless, continue to attribute whiskers to Thrinaxodon.

The earliest clear evidence of hair or fur is in fossils of Castorocauda, from <hl> 164 million years ago <hl> in the Middle Jurassic. In the 1950s, it was suggested that the foramina (passages) in the maxillae and premaxillae (bones in the front of the upper jaw) of cynodonts were channels which supplied blood vessels and nerves to vibrissae (whiskers) and so were evidence of hair or fur; it was soon pointed out, however, that foramina do not necessarily show that an animal had vibrissae, as the modern lizard Tupinambis has foramina that are almost identical to those found in the nonmammalian cynodont Thrinaxodon. Popular sources, nevertheless, continue to attribute whiskers to Thrinaxodon.

question: When is it believed that the earliest know hair was said to exist?, context: The earliest clear evidence of hair or fur is in fossils of Castorocauda, from 164 million years ago in the Middle Jurassic. In the 1950s, it was suggested that the foramina (passages) in the maxillae and premaxillae (bones in the front of the upper jaw) of cynodonts were channels which supplied blood vessels and nerves to vibrissae (whiskers) and so were evidence of hair or fur; it was soon pointed out, however, that foramina do not necessarily show that an animal had vibrissae, as the modern lizard Tupinambis has foramina that are almost identical to those found in the nonmammalian cynodont Thrinaxodon. Popular sources, nevertheless, continue to attribute whiskers to Thrinaxodon.


Question: When was it suggested that foramina premaxillae could contain the first know hairs?

Answer: 1950s

The earliest clear evidence of hair or fur is in fossils of Castorocauda, from 164 million years ago in the Middle Jurassic. <hl> In the 1950s , it was suggested that the foramina (passages) in the maxillae and premaxillae (bones in the front of the upper jaw) of cynodonts were channels which supplied blood vessels and nerves to vibrissae (whiskers) and so were evidence of hair or fur; it was soon pointed out, however, that foramina do not necessarily show that an animal had vibrissae, as the modern lizard Tupinambis has foramina that are almost identical to those found in the nonmammalian cynodont Thrinaxodon. <hl> Popular sources, nevertheless, continue to attribute whiskers to Thrinaxodon.

The earliest clear evidence of hair or fur is in fossils of Castorocauda, from 164 million years ago in the Middle Jurassic. In the <hl> 1950s <hl>, it was suggested that the foramina (passages) in the maxillae and premaxillae (bones in the front of the upper jaw) of cynodonts were channels which supplied blood vessels and nerves to vibrissae (whiskers) and so were evidence of hair or fur; it was soon pointed out, however, that foramina do not necessarily show that an animal had vibrissae, as the modern lizard Tupinambis has foramina that are almost identical to those found in the nonmammalian cynodont Thrinaxodon. Popular sources, nevertheless, continue to attribute whiskers to Thrinaxodon.

In the <hl> 1950s <hl> , it was suggested that the foramina (passages) in the maxillae and premaxillae (bones in the front of the upper jaw) of cynodonts were channels which supplied blood vessels and nerves to vibrissae (whiskers) and so were evidence of hair or fur; it was soon pointed out, however, that foramina do not necessarily show that an animal had vibrissae, as the modern lizard Tupinambis has foramina that are almost identical to those found in the nonmammalian cynodont Thrinaxodon.

question: When was it suggested that foramina premaxillae could contain the first know hairs?, context: The earliest clear evidence of hair or fur is in fossils of Castorocauda, from 164 million years ago in the Middle Jurassic. In the 1950s, it was suggested that the foramina (passages) in the maxillae and premaxillae (bones in the front of the upper jaw) of cynodonts were channels which supplied blood vessels and nerves to vibrissae (whiskers) and so were evidence of hair or fur; it was soon pointed out, however, that foramina do not necessarily show that an animal had vibrissae, as the modern lizard Tupinambis has foramina that are almost identical to those found in the nonmammalian cynodont Thrinaxodon. Popular sources, nevertheless, continue to attribute whiskers to Thrinaxodon.


Question: Which major time period were these suggested hairs from?

Answer: Jurassic

<hl> The earliest clear evidence of hair or fur is in fossils of Castorocauda, from 164 million years ago in the Middle Jurassic . <hl> In the 1950s, it was suggested that the foramina (passages) in the maxillae and premaxillae (bones in the front of the upper jaw) of cynodonts were channels which supplied blood vessels and nerves to vibrissae (whiskers) and so were evidence of hair or fur; it was soon pointed out, however, that foramina do not necessarily show that an animal had vibrissae, as the modern lizard Tupinambis has foramina that are almost identical to those found in the nonmammalian cynodont Thrinaxodon. Popular sources, nevertheless, continue to attribute whiskers to Thrinaxodon.

The earliest clear evidence of hair or fur is in fossils of Castorocauda, from 164 million years ago in the Middle <hl> Jurassic <hl>. In the 1950s, it was suggested that the foramina (passages) in the maxillae and premaxillae (bones in the front of the upper jaw) of cynodonts were channels which supplied blood vessels and nerves to vibrissae (whiskers) and so were evidence of hair or fur; it was soon pointed out, however, that foramina do not necessarily show that an animal had vibrissae, as the modern lizard Tupinambis has foramina that are almost identical to those found in the nonmammalian cynodont Thrinaxodon. Popular sources, nevertheless, continue to attribute whiskers to Thrinaxodon.

The earliest clear evidence of hair or fur is in fossils of Castorocauda, from 164 million years ago in the Middle <hl> Jurassic <hl> .

question: Which major time period were these suggested hairs from?, context: The earliest clear evidence of hair or fur is in fossils of Castorocauda, from 164 million years ago in the Middle Jurassic. In the 1950s, it was suggested that the foramina (passages) in the maxillae and premaxillae (bones in the front of the upper jaw) of cynodonts were channels which supplied blood vessels and nerves to vibrissae (whiskers) and so were evidence of hair or fur; it was soon pointed out, however, that foramina do not necessarily show that an animal had vibrissae, as the modern lizard Tupinambis has foramina that are almost identical to those found in the nonmammalian cynodont Thrinaxodon. Popular sources, nevertheless, continue to attribute whiskers to Thrinaxodon.


Question: Which group of animal has a lower body temperature that marsupials and placentals?

Answer: monotremes

When endothermy first appeared in the evolution of mammals is uncertain. <hl> Modern monotremes have lower body temperatures and more variable metabolic rates than marsupials and placentals, but there is evidence that some of their ancestors, perhaps including ancestors of the therians, may have had body temperatures like those of modern therians. <hl> Some of the evidence found so far suggests that Triassic cynodonts had fairly high metabolic rates, but it is not conclusive. For small animals, an insulative covering like fur is necessary for the maintenance of a high and stable body temperature.

When endothermy first appeared in the evolution of mammals is uncertain. Modern <hl> monotremes <hl> have lower body temperatures and more variable metabolic rates than marsupials and placentals, but there is evidence that some of their ancestors, perhaps including ancestors of the therians, may have had body temperatures like those of modern therians. Some of the evidence found so far suggests that Triassic cynodonts had fairly high metabolic rates, but it is not conclusive. For small animals, an insulative covering like fur is necessary for the maintenance of a high and stable body temperature.

question: Which group of animal has a lower body temperature that marsupials and placentals?, context: When endothermy first appeared in the evolution of mammals is uncertain. Modern monotremes have lower body temperatures and more variable metabolic rates than marsupials and placentals, but there is evidence that some of their ancestors, perhaps including ancestors of the therians, may have had body temperatures like those of modern therians. Some of the evidence found so far suggests that Triassic cynodonts had fairly high metabolic rates, but it is not conclusive. For small animals, an insulative covering like fur is necessary for the maintenance of a high and stable body temperature.


Question: Which time period is suggested that cynodonts had a high metabolic rate?

Answer: Triassic

When endothermy first appeared in the evolution of mammals is uncertain. Modern monotremes have lower body temperatures and more variable metabolic rates than marsupials and placentals, but there is evidence that some of their ancestors, perhaps including ancestors of the therians, may have had body temperatures like those of modern therians. <hl> Some of the evidence found so far suggests that Triassic cynodonts had fairly high metabolic rates, but it is not conclusive. <hl> For small animals, an insulative covering like fur is necessary for the maintenance of a high and stable body temperature.

When endothermy first appeared in the evolution of mammals is uncertain. Modern monotremes have lower body temperatures and more variable metabolic rates than marsupials and placentals, but there is evidence that some of their ancestors, perhaps including ancestors of the therians, may have had body temperatures like those of modern therians. Some of the evidence found so far suggests that <hl> Triassic <hl> cynodonts had fairly high metabolic rates, but it is not conclusive. For small animals, an insulative covering like fur is necessary for the maintenance of a high and stable body temperature.

question: Which time period is suggested that cynodonts had a high metabolic rate?, context: When endothermy first appeared in the evolution of mammals is uncertain. Modern monotremes have lower body temperatures and more variable metabolic rates than marsupials and placentals, but there is evidence that some of their ancestors, perhaps including ancestors of the therians, may have had body temperatures like those of modern therians. Some of the evidence found so far suggests that Triassic cynodonts had fairly high metabolic rates, but it is not conclusive. For small animals, an insulative covering like fur is necessary for the maintenance of a high and stable body temperature.


Question: Why is it necessary for smaller animals to have an insulative covering?

Answer: maintenance of a high and stable body temperature

When endothermy first appeared in the evolution of mammals is uncertain. Modern monotremes have lower body temperatures and more variable metabolic rates than marsupials and placentals, but there is evidence that some of their ancestors, perhaps including ancestors of the therians, may have had body temperatures like those of modern therians. Some of the evidence found so far suggests that Triassic cynodonts had fairly high metabolic rates, but it is not conclusive. <hl> For small animals, an insulative covering like fur is necessary for the maintenance of a high and stable body temperature . <hl>

When endothermy first appeared in the evolution of mammals is uncertain. Modern monotremes have lower body temperatures and more variable metabolic rates than marsupials and placentals, but there is evidence that some of their ancestors, perhaps including ancestors of the therians, may have had body temperatures like those of modern therians. Some of the evidence found so far suggests that Triassic cynodonts had fairly high metabolic rates, but it is not conclusive. For small animals, an insulative covering like fur is necessary for the <hl> maintenance of a high and stable body temperature <hl>.

For small animals, an insulative covering like fur is necessary for the <hl> maintenance of a high and stable body temperature <hl> .

question: Why is it necessary for smaller animals to have an insulative covering?, context: When endothermy first appeared in the evolution of mammals is uncertain. Modern monotremes have lower body temperatures and more variable metabolic rates than marsupials and placentals, but there is evidence that some of their ancestors, perhaps including ancestors of the therians, may have had body temperatures like those of modern therians. Some of the evidence found so far suggests that Triassic cynodonts had fairly high metabolic rates, but it is not conclusive. For small animals, an insulative covering like fur is necessary for the maintenance of a high and stable body temperature.


Question: When air enters both the oral and nasal cavities, where does it flow through?

Answer: larynx, trachea and bronchi

Breathing is largely driven by the muscular diaphragm, which divides the thorax from the abdominal cavity, forming a dome with its convexity towards the thorax. Contraction of the diaphragm flattens the dome, increasing the volume of the cavity in which the lung is enclosed. <hl> Air enters through the oral and nasal cavities; it flows through the larynx, trachea and bronchi and expands the alveoli. <hl> Relaxation of the diaphragm has the opposite effect, passively recoiling during normal breathing. During exercise, the abdominal wall contracts, increasing visceral pressure on the diaphragm, thus forcing the air out more quickly and forcefully. The rib cage itself also is able to expand and contract the thoracic cavity to some degree, through the action of other respiratory and accessory respiratory muscles. As a result, air is sucked into or expelled out of the lungs, always moving down its pressure gradient. This type of lung is known as a bellows lung as it resembles a blacksmith's bellows. Mammals take oxygen into their lungs, and discard carbon dioxide.

Breathing is largely driven by the muscular diaphragm, which divides the thorax from the abdominal cavity, forming a dome with its convexity towards the thorax. Contraction of the diaphragm flattens the dome, increasing the volume of the cavity in which the lung is enclosed. Air enters through the oral and nasal cavities; it flows through the <hl> larynx, trachea and bronchi <hl> and expands the alveoli. Relaxation of the diaphragm has the opposite effect, passively recoiling during normal breathing. During exercise, the abdominal wall contracts, increasing visceral pressure on the diaphragm, thus forcing the air out more quickly and forcefully. The rib cage itself also is able to expand and contract the thoracic cavity to some degree, through the action of other respiratory and accessory respiratory muscles. As a result, air is sucked into or expelled out of the lungs, always moving down its pressure gradient. This type of lung is known as a bellows lung as it resembles a blacksmith's bellows. Mammals take oxygen into their lungs, and discard carbon dioxide.

question: When air enters both the oral and nasal cavities, where does it flow through?, context: Breathing is largely driven by the muscular diaphragm, which divides the thorax from the abdominal cavity, forming a dome with its convexity towards the thorax. Contraction of the diaphragm flattens the dome, increasing the volume of the cavity in which the lung is enclosed. Air enters through the oral and nasal cavities; it flows through the larynx, trachea and bronchi and expands the alveoli. Relaxation of the diaphragm has the opposite effect, passively recoiling during normal breathing. During exercise, the abdominal wall contracts, increasing visceral pressure on the diaphragm, thus forcing the air out more quickly and forcefully. The rib cage itself also is able to expand and contract the thoracic cavity to some degree, through the action of other respiratory and accessory respiratory muscles. As a result, air is sucked into or expelled out of the lungs, always moving down its pressure gradient. This type of lung is known as a bellows lung as it resembles a blacksmith's bellows. Mammals take oxygen into their lungs, and discard carbon dioxide.


Question: Increasing pressure on the diaphragm thus increasing air output more frequently is usually caused by?

Answer: exercise

Breathing is largely driven by the muscular diaphragm, which divides the thorax from the abdominal cavity, forming a dome with its convexity towards the thorax. Contraction of the diaphragm flattens the dome, increasing the volume of the cavity in which the lung is enclosed. Air enters through the oral and nasal cavities; it flows through the larynx, trachea and bronchi and expands the alveoli. Relaxation of the diaphragm has the opposite effect, passively recoiling during normal breathing. <hl> During exercise , the abdominal wall contracts, increasing visceral pressure on the diaphragm, thus forcing the air out more quickly and forcefully. <hl> The rib cage itself also is able to expand and contract the thoracic cavity to some degree, through the action of other respiratory and accessory respiratory muscles. As a result, air is sucked into or expelled out of the lungs, always moving down its pressure gradient. This type of lung is known as a bellows lung as it resembles a blacksmith's bellows. Mammals take oxygen into their lungs, and discard carbon dioxide.

Breathing is largely driven by the muscular diaphragm, which divides the thorax from the abdominal cavity, forming a dome with its convexity towards the thorax. Contraction of the diaphragm flattens the dome, increasing the volume of the cavity in which the lung is enclosed. Air enters through the oral and nasal cavities; it flows through the larynx, trachea and bronchi and expands the alveoli. Relaxation of the diaphragm has the opposite effect, passively recoiling during normal breathing. During <hl> exercise <hl>, the abdominal wall contracts, increasing visceral pressure on the diaphragm, thus forcing the air out more quickly and forcefully. The rib cage itself also is able to expand and contract the thoracic cavity to some degree, through the action of other respiratory and accessory respiratory muscles. As a result, air is sucked into or expelled out of the lungs, always moving down its pressure gradient. This type of lung is known as a bellows lung as it resembles a blacksmith's bellows. Mammals take oxygen into their lungs, and discard carbon dioxide.

During <hl> exercise <hl> , the abdominal wall contracts, increasing visceral pressure on the diaphragm, thus forcing the air out more quickly and forcefully.

question: Increasing pressure on the diaphragm thus increasing air output more frequently is usually caused by?, context: Breathing is largely driven by the muscular diaphragm, which divides the thorax from the abdominal cavity, forming a dome with its convexity towards the thorax. Contraction of the diaphragm flattens the dome, increasing the volume of the cavity in which the lung is enclosed. Air enters through the oral and nasal cavities; it flows through the larynx, trachea and bronchi and expands the alveoli. Relaxation of the diaphragm has the opposite effect, passively recoiling during normal breathing. During exercise, the abdominal wall contracts, increasing visceral pressure on the diaphragm, thus forcing the air out more quickly and forcefully. The rib cage itself also is able to expand and contract the thoracic cavity to some degree, through the action of other respiratory and accessory respiratory muscles. As a result, air is sucked into or expelled out of the lungs, always moving down its pressure gradient. This type of lung is known as a bellows lung as it resembles a blacksmith's bellows. Mammals take oxygen into their lungs, and discard carbon dioxide.


Question: A result of air being sucked into or blown out of the lung thats moving its pressure gradient is referred to?

Answer: bellows lung

Breathing is largely driven by the muscular diaphragm, which divides the thorax from the abdominal cavity, forming a dome with its convexity towards the thorax. Contraction of the diaphragm flattens the dome, increasing the volume of the cavity in which the lung is enclosed. Air enters through the oral and nasal cavities; it flows through the larynx, trachea and bronchi and expands the alveoli. Relaxation of the diaphragm has the opposite effect, passively recoiling during normal breathing. During exercise, the abdominal wall contracts, increasing visceral pressure on the diaphragm, thus forcing the air out more quickly and forcefully. The rib cage itself also is able to expand and contract the thoracic cavity to some degree, through the action of other respiratory and accessory respiratory muscles. As a result, air is sucked into or expelled out of the lungs, always moving down its pressure gradient. <hl> This type of lung is known as a bellows lung as it resembles a blacksmith's bellows. <hl> Mammals take oxygen into their lungs, and discard carbon dioxide.

Breathing is largely driven by the muscular diaphragm, which divides the thorax from the abdominal cavity, forming a dome with its convexity towards the thorax. Contraction of the diaphragm flattens the dome, increasing the volume of the cavity in which the lung is enclosed. Air enters through the oral and nasal cavities; it flows through the larynx, trachea and bronchi and expands the alveoli. Relaxation of the diaphragm has the opposite effect, passively recoiling during normal breathing. During exercise, the abdominal wall contracts, increasing visceral pressure on the diaphragm, thus forcing the air out more quickly and forcefully. The rib cage itself also is able to expand and contract the thoracic cavity to some degree, through the action of other respiratory and accessory respiratory muscles. As a result, air is sucked into or expelled out of the lungs, always moving down its pressure gradient. This type of lung is known as a <hl> bellows lung <hl> as it resembles a blacksmith's bellows. Mammals take oxygen into their lungs, and discard carbon dioxide.

question: A result of air being sucked into or blown out of the lung thats moving its pressure gradient is referred to?, context: Breathing is largely driven by the muscular diaphragm, which divides the thorax from the abdominal cavity, forming a dome with its convexity towards the thorax. Contraction of the diaphragm flattens the dome, increasing the volume of the cavity in which the lung is enclosed. Air enters through the oral and nasal cavities; it flows through the larynx, trachea and bronchi and expands the alveoli. Relaxation of the diaphragm has the opposite effect, passively recoiling during normal breathing. During exercise, the abdominal wall contracts, increasing visceral pressure on the diaphragm, thus forcing the air out more quickly and forcefully. The rib cage itself also is able to expand and contract the thoracic cavity to some degree, through the action of other respiratory and accessory respiratory muscles. As a result, air is sucked into or expelled out of the lungs, always moving down its pressure gradient. This type of lung is known as a bellows lung as it resembles a blacksmith's bellows. Mammals take oxygen into their lungs, and discard carbon dioxide.


Question: Where did the term Bellows Lung come from?

Answer: blacksmith's bellows

Breathing is largely driven by the muscular diaphragm, which divides the thorax from the abdominal cavity, forming a dome with its convexity towards the thorax. Contraction of the diaphragm flattens the dome, increasing the volume of the cavity in which the lung is enclosed. Air enters through the oral and nasal cavities; it flows through the larynx, trachea and bronchi and expands the alveoli. Relaxation of the diaphragm has the opposite effect, passively recoiling during normal breathing. During exercise, the abdominal wall contracts, increasing visceral pressure on the diaphragm, thus forcing the air out more quickly and forcefully. The rib cage itself also is able to expand and contract the thoracic cavity to some degree, through the action of other respiratory and accessory respiratory muscles. As a result, air is sucked into or expelled out of the lungs, always moving down its pressure gradient. <hl> This type of lung is known as a bellows lung as it resembles a blacksmith's bellows . <hl> Mammals take oxygen into their lungs, and discard carbon dioxide.

Breathing is largely driven by the muscular diaphragm, which divides the thorax from the abdominal cavity, forming a dome with its convexity towards the thorax. Contraction of the diaphragm flattens the dome, increasing the volume of the cavity in which the lung is enclosed. Air enters through the oral and nasal cavities; it flows through the larynx, trachea and bronchi and expands the alveoli. Relaxation of the diaphragm has the opposite effect, passively recoiling during normal breathing. During exercise, the abdominal wall contracts, increasing visceral pressure on the diaphragm, thus forcing the air out more quickly and forcefully. The rib cage itself also is able to expand and contract the thoracic cavity to some degree, through the action of other respiratory and accessory respiratory muscles. As a result, air is sucked into or expelled out of the lungs, always moving down its pressure gradient. This type of lung is known as a bellows lung as it resembles a <hl> blacksmith's bellows <hl>. Mammals take oxygen into their lungs, and discard carbon dioxide.

This type of lung is known as a bellows lung as it resembles a <hl> blacksmith's bellows <hl> .

question: Where did the term Bellows Lung come from?, context: Breathing is largely driven by the muscular diaphragm, which divides the thorax from the abdominal cavity, forming a dome with its convexity towards the thorax. Contraction of the diaphragm flattens the dome, increasing the volume of the cavity in which the lung is enclosed. Air enters through the oral and nasal cavities; it flows through the larynx, trachea and bronchi and expands the alveoli. Relaxation of the diaphragm has the opposite effect, passively recoiling during normal breathing. During exercise, the abdominal wall contracts, increasing visceral pressure on the diaphragm, thus forcing the air out more quickly and forcefully. The rib cage itself also is able to expand and contract the thoracic cavity to some degree, through the action of other respiratory and accessory respiratory muscles. As a result, air is sucked into or expelled out of the lungs, always moving down its pressure gradient. This type of lung is known as a bellows lung as it resembles a blacksmith's bellows. Mammals take oxygen into their lungs, and discard carbon dioxide.


Question: What is the typical thickness of the epidermis?

Answer: 10 to 30 cells thick

<hl> The epidermis is typically 10 to 30 cells thick ; its main function is to provide a waterproof layer. <hl> Its outermost cells are constantly lost; its bottommost cells are constantly dividing and pushing upward. The middle layer, the dermis, is 15 to 40 times thicker than the epidermis. The dermis is made up of many components, such as bony structures and blood vessels. The hypodermis is made up of adipose tissue. Its job is to store lipids, and to provide cushioning and insulation. The thickness of this layer varies widely from species to species.

The epidermis is typically <hl> 10 to 30 cells thick <hl>; its main function is to provide a waterproof layer. Its outermost cells are constantly lost; its bottommost cells are constantly dividing and pushing upward. The middle layer, the dermis, is 15 to 40 times thicker than the epidermis. The dermis is made up of many components, such as bony structures and blood vessels. The hypodermis is made up of adipose tissue. Its job is to store lipids, and to provide cushioning and insulation. The thickness of this layer varies widely from species to species.

The epidermis is typically <hl> 10 to 30 cells thick <hl> ; its main function is to provide a waterproof layer.

question: What is the typical thickness of the epidermis?, context: The epidermis is typically 10 to 30 cells thick; its main function is to provide a waterproof layer. Its outermost cells are constantly lost; its bottommost cells are constantly dividing and pushing upward. The middle layer, the dermis, is 15 to 40 times thicker than the epidermis. The dermis is made up of many components, such as bony structures and blood vessels. The hypodermis is made up of adipose tissue. Its job is to store lipids, and to provide cushioning and insulation. The thickness of this layer varies widely from species to species.


Question: What is the main function of the epidermis?

Answer: to provide a waterproof layer

<hl> The epidermis is typically 10 to 30 cells thick; its main function is to provide a waterproof layer . <hl> Its outermost cells are constantly lost; its bottommost cells are constantly dividing and pushing upward. The middle layer, the dermis, is 15 to 40 times thicker than the epidermis. The dermis is made up of many components, such as bony structures and blood vessels. The hypodermis is made up of adipose tissue. Its job is to store lipids, and to provide cushioning and insulation. The thickness of this layer varies widely from species to species.

The epidermis is typically 10 to 30 cells thick; its main function is <hl> to provide a waterproof layer <hl>. Its outermost cells are constantly lost; its bottommost cells are constantly dividing and pushing upward. The middle layer, the dermis, is 15 to 40 times thicker than the epidermis. The dermis is made up of many components, such as bony structures and blood vessels. The hypodermis is made up of adipose tissue. Its job is to store lipids, and to provide cushioning and insulation. The thickness of this layer varies widely from species to species.

The epidermis is typically 10 to 30 cells thick; its main function is <hl> to provide a waterproof layer <hl> .

question: What is the main function of the epidermis?, context: The epidermis is typically 10 to 30 cells thick; its main function is to provide a waterproof layer. Its outermost cells are constantly lost; its bottommost cells are constantly dividing and pushing upward. The middle layer, the dermis, is 15 to 40 times thicker than the epidermis. The dermis is made up of many components, such as bony structures and blood vessels. The hypodermis is made up of adipose tissue. Its job is to store lipids, and to provide cushioning and insulation. The thickness of this layer varies widely from species to species.


Question: How much more thicker is the dermis to the epidermis?

Answer: 15 to 40 times thicker

The epidermis is typically 10 to 30 cells thick; its main function is to provide a waterproof layer. Its outermost cells are constantly lost; its bottommost cells are constantly dividing and pushing upward. <hl> The middle layer, the dermis, is 15 to 40 times thicker than the epidermis. <hl> The dermis is made up of many components, such as bony structures and blood vessels. The hypodermis is made up of adipose tissue. Its job is to store lipids, and to provide cushioning and insulation. The thickness of this layer varies widely from species to species.

The epidermis is typically 10 to 30 cells thick; its main function is to provide a waterproof layer. Its outermost cells are constantly lost; its bottommost cells are constantly dividing and pushing upward. The middle layer, the dermis, is <hl> 15 to 40 times thicker <hl> than the epidermis. The dermis is made up of many components, such as bony structures and blood vessels. The hypodermis is made up of adipose tissue. Its job is to store lipids, and to provide cushioning and insulation. The thickness of this layer varies widely from species to species.

question: How much more thicker is the dermis to the epidermis?, context: The epidermis is typically 10 to 30 cells thick; its main function is to provide a waterproof layer. Its outermost cells are constantly lost; its bottommost cells are constantly dividing and pushing upward. The middle layer, the dermis, is 15 to 40 times thicker than the epidermis. The dermis is made up of many components, such as bony structures and blood vessels. The hypodermis is made up of adipose tissue. Its job is to store lipids, and to provide cushioning and insulation. The thickness of this layer varies widely from species to species.


Question: What is the dermis mainly consist of?

Answer: bony structures and blood vessels

The epidermis is typically 10 to 30 cells thick; its main function is to provide a waterproof layer. Its outermost cells are constantly lost; its bottommost cells are constantly dividing and pushing upward. The middle layer, the dermis, is 15 to 40 times thicker than the epidermis. <hl> The dermis is made up of many components, such as bony structures and blood vessels . <hl> The hypodermis is made up of adipose tissue. Its job is to store lipids, and to provide cushioning and insulation. The thickness of this layer varies widely from species to species.

The epidermis is typically 10 to 30 cells thick; its main function is to provide a waterproof layer. Its outermost cells are constantly lost; its bottommost cells are constantly dividing and pushing upward. The middle layer, the dermis, is 15 to 40 times thicker than the epidermis. The dermis is made up of many components, such as <hl> bony structures and blood vessels <hl>. The hypodermis is made up of adipose tissue. Its job is to store lipids, and to provide cushioning and insulation. The thickness of this layer varies widely from species to species.

The dermis is made up of many components, such as <hl> bony structures and blood vessels <hl> .

question: What is the dermis mainly consist of?, context: The epidermis is typically 10 to 30 cells thick; its main function is to provide a waterproof layer. Its outermost cells are constantly lost; its bottommost cells are constantly dividing and pushing upward. The middle layer, the dermis, is 15 to 40 times thicker than the epidermis. The dermis is made up of many components, such as bony structures and blood vessels. The hypodermis is made up of adipose tissue. Its job is to store lipids, and to provide cushioning and insulation. The thickness of this layer varies widely from species to species.