Jump to content

Talk:Multituberculata

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Rather than listing the families here, it's far more practical to restrict it to the suborders. There are only two.
The number of families is far greater; eg. "Plagiaulacida" includes, (working from memory, so I might forget some), Allodontidae, Paulchoffatiidae, Hahnodontidae, Pinheirodontidae, Albionbaataridae, Eobaataridae and Plagiaulacidae.
The second suborder, Cimolodonta, is more extensive.
A family list would be loooooooooooooooooooooooong.

Allotheria

[edit]

Since the Allotheria article redirects here, shouldn't there be some sort of explanation of why this is the case in the article? The word Allotheria appears nowhere in this article. Lokicarbis 12:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Chiming in a bit late here, but I agree. I've come across several articles that redirect somewhere else, and that word is nowhere to be found in the article. According to this, Allotheria is a subclass of mammals, containing the single order Multituberculata. So I wouldn't say they're the same thing, but a redirect is probably not unreasonable provided someone more knowledgeable than I gives an explanation in the article. --Decoder24 21:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong here. Multituberculata were not the only order within subclass Allotheria. For example, Docodonta and Triconodonta. The redirect needs to be reverted. --Philo 13:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these successful critters survived the K/T extinction and lasted another 30 million years, what killed them? KeithJonsn (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

[edit]

I removed the "Groups within Multituberculata" section from the article because it was a copy-and-paste from "Multituberculata (Cope 1884)". and (1) that page says "THIS PROJECT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. IT IS A HOBBY." and (2) I can't find a free license notice on that page. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was added by User:KTDykes, who also maintains that website. Although he says that his project is not scientific, I believe there are no problems with his accuracy and don't see any reason to keep the text if we have permission and it is accurate. Ucucha 10:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I had no idea. I've added back the section in question. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

[edit]

Added the family list, but I think the specification just until Families or Genera would be enough... The rest of the taxonomy should be placed in the own genus page instead... Any volounteer?? M4rc077 (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree; the list seems to be overwhelmingly long, and it generally isn't done this way with other mammalian orders of similar size (fair enough with smaller groups like Sirenia). Since the genus pages exist, I think we can go ahead and do this, unless there are any objections? Anaxial (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since someone took the trouble of compiling this long list, might it not be better to preserve it in a List of multituberculate species? Ucucha 08:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a reasonable suggestion, and not difficult to do. Anaxial (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mammals or (other) mammaliformes?

[edit]

I've just read the sections Evolution of mammals#Mammals or mammaliformes?, Evolution of mammals#Family tree — cynodonts to mammals, and Evolution of mammals#Multituberculates, which claim that a majority of modern taxonomists define mammals as the crown group of all living mammals, and exclude the multituberculata from this clade.

I don't think this article has to change its classification of the multituberculata; but probably that other opinion should be mentioned - whether or not it truly is a "majority opinion".

Mainly, this is just a question of definition. Some really interesting questions, however: Are there any fossile finds that indicate how multituberculates reproduced; were they vivipares; did they have epipubic bones; do the finds indicate advanced parental care of juveniles? JoergenB (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about multituberculate biology, but there are two separate issues that have a bearing on the question of whether multituberculates are mammals.
The first is the definition of the taxon Mammalia. Some taxonomists define mammals as a crown group—basically, the last common ancestor of living monotremes, marsupials, and placentals, and all its descendants. However, I doubt that is indeed a majority position; I think more paleontologists define Mammalia a little broader as the last common ancestor of Sinoconodon and living mammals plus all its descendants. See, for example, the discussion in Luo, Z.-X.; Kielan-Jaworowska, Z.; Cifelli, R.L. (2002). "In quest for a phylogeny of Mesozoic mammals". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 47 (1): 1–78. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
The second issue is the phylogenetic position of multituberculates. As far as I know, that question has not been conclusively resolved: some evidence suggests multis are more closely related to therians than to monotremes, other evidence places them as the sister group of monotremes plus therians. Again, see Luo et al. (2002).
Only if the more restrictive definition of Mammalia and the second interpretation of the phylogenetic relations of multis are used, multis are not mammals. But I don't think I've seen any literature that actually takes that position, probably because really there aren't all that many people that use the restricted definition of Mammalia. Ucucha 20:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Did you look at the three sections of Evolution of mammals? In particular, did you see the following claim in Evolution of mammals#Mammals or mammaliformes?
"Although this now appears to be the majority approach,..." ("this" being the definition as the crown group of recent mammals only)?
This is inline unreferenced; perhaps we should ask for sources for the slightly weasly "this now appears to be". Anyhow, our article ought to mention briefly that opinions are divided, oughtn't it? JoergenB (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is too strong a claim. I don't think that's the only place where that article needs revision. There is a lot of uncertainty regarding the relationships of early mammals, and I think that article may treat as established many things that are not. Ucucha 15:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. It does mention that the precise phylogenetic position of the multituberculata is unsure, though. JoergenB (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the only thing the article is overconfident about. Explain to me how, if the Cimolodonta became extinct in the Eocene, the Multituberculates managed to survive to the Oligocene?! And the idea that their extinction was caused by the rodents out-competing them is just a speculation. I mean, we do know for sure that the climate became much cooler in the second part of the Eocene... Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Multituberculata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Multituberculata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity

[edit]

The 'Evolutionary History' Section remarks that the oldest species dates back 183 mya and the last went extinct 35 mya. That gives a group life of 148 M years, not the 166 M years quoted in both the article's lead paragraph and the 'Evolutionary History' Section itself; even worse, the latter also mentions 183 M years!

I'm not able to chech the sources so have no idea what is correct. If there is evidence to support an earlier origin and/or later demise (thus extending the longevity of the group to 166 or even 183 M years), the 'Evolutionary History' should be suitably modified. Otherwise, the 166 and 183 should be replaced by the 'supported' figure of 148.Glevum (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogeny

[edit]

I replaced the image of phylogeny with a cladogram. Hiroizmeh (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multituberculata&oldid=1194038812"