This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
The article for Dissopsalis says that that genus lasted into the Pliocene, but this article says that the last Hyaenodontid died out during the Miocene. So, which article needs to be amended?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The referral of Kelba to Afrotheria does not mean that all hyaenodontids are Afrotheria. Not one of the published and cited sources supports placing all hyaenodontids anywhere but within the creodonts. Nor do any of the abstracts cited mention anything about this. Unless someone can provide a published sources, it's clear that this does not have any place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.98.16 (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Gheerbrant et all 2006; most of the other papers cited deffer to this, whose basis for an african origin of Hyaenodontidae is based on relations with afrotheres. "What if nothing is a Creodont?" connects hyaenodontids to Eoryctes, now usually thought to be a basal afrothere (and an afrosoricid at that). Also, again, Creodonta is not a valid clade. Now, you can argue that some of the other sources are vague ("an african origin" is repeated in them). Regardless, what is important is that Creodonta is a wastebasket taxon.(Chaoyangopterus) 15:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gheerbrant et al. (2006) NEVER suggests that creodonts are afrotherians. Not once in that paper do they ever say anything to this. There is no mention in Polly's or Morlo's abstracts that hyaenodontids are afrotherians. I could not find any articles supporting that Eoryctes is an afrotherian, let alone an afrosoricid. Please provide references for these and quit stacking citations that have nothing to do with your claim in Wikipedia articles.71.236.93.51 (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Eoryctes, see this and this, which connect it to Potamogale. As for Gheerbrant, the argument present is the association between Boualitomus and Tinerhodon to several mammal taxa to establish an african phylogenetic origin for Hyaenodontidae; among these are afrosoricids (though the emphasis is on north african cimolestans, granted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoyangopterus (talk • contribs) 00:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in McKenna et al. (2000) do the authors say or imply that Eoryctes is related to Potamogale. Those authors make comparison of a single character between Daulestes and Potamogale but never say or imply that these taxa are related. Gheerbrant never says that hyaenodontids are afrotherians, makes no mention of any afrosoricids. Gheerbrant clearly (p. 487) favors a relationship between cimolestids or cimolestid-like taxa (none of the ones he mentions have ever been associated with the afrosoricids). An origin in Africa does not automatically imply an origin among afrotherian mammals. A webpage written by an entomologist which has only speculation is not a reliable source and has no place being used as evidence for this. Please quit misrepresenting published sources to favor your views when they do not contain anything like you are saying.71.236.93.51 (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with this statement on the relationship between the Creodonta and Pholidota: "a recent phylogenetic analysis of Paleogene mammals supports the monophyly of Creodonta, and places them in Pholidota.[1]
The reference places a monophyletic Creodonta in a clade that also includes Palaeoryctidae, some Didelphodontids and part of Arctocyonidae. This group is in turn sister to a group that would contain extant Pholidotans and Palaeanodonts and I would considered this to be Pholidota sensu lato. The problem is that the Halliday et al (2017) paper doesn't specify the names for the larger groups and it could be argued that Pholidota includes the whole larger group that is sister to the Carnivoramorpha and Mesonychids (which is consistent with what this article currently says). I have prepared a cladogram of the Halliday phylogentic analysis. I think Pholidota is group 2 in the cladogram, while this article is referring to Pholidota as group 1. I don't think this broader interpretation is justified, but I can't say my interpretation is correct either, which is why I am not making a change to the article now. Any suggestions? Jts1882 (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Halliday, Thomas J. D.; Upchurch, Paul; Goswami, Anjali (2015). "Resolving the relationships of Paleocene placental mammals". Biological Reviews: n/a–n/a. doi:10.1111/brv.12242. ISSN1464-7931.
I have just modified one external link on Hyaenodontidae. 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.
