![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Any idea how we can make the classification a bit cleaner or easier to read?. PaleoKaden (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Never mind, I bolded some stuff, it is easier to read. PaleoKaden (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
This article needs better citation and legitimate sources (no blogs), preferably with properly formatted references. The idea that Sparassodonta and its constituent taxa are no longer viewed as marsupials is new to me: can someone link the first study where this split was formally made? Animalparty (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
The recent revision for Forasiepi (2009) makes Prothylacinidae (or Prothylacininae) a paraphyletic clade. But it implies that this group must have its own article to explain their taxonomic history? or it could be added in Sparassodonta or in a future article of Borhyaenoidea?--Rextron (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Only one study is cited as evidence for the new view on the group's extinction; is one study alone really enough to overturn the previous view? Can we really assume that there are no sufficient gaps in the fossil record to account for divergent dates between last known appearance and first known arrival of competing species?
Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
If all the recent literature does indeed support that conclusion, then it should be easy to cite more than one source for it. Otherwise, the language of the article should be altered to reflect the possibility that the source cited could be wrong. As an example of how evidence can lead to mistaken conclusions, the coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record for millions of years, yet it apparently existed all along.
This article and Thylacosmilus present inferences based on fossil evidence as though they were proven facts. It is my understanding that science does not deal with absolute proof, but rather the most likely explanation (see Scientific evidence#Concept of "scientific proof").
Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply