Talk:Afrotheria

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Until a published paper supports placing Hyaenodontidae in the Afrotheria, this should not be put here. I looked at Grohe et al. and there is no mention at all that hyaenodontids (or any of the subfamilies) are afrotherians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.98.16 (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the orders classified in Afrotheria appear to have anything to do with one another, other than a probable African origin. Not a single measurable character can be put forward to unite them.

So how did they get the DNA from Desmostylia and Embrithopoda? That's interesting. We just assume they belong in this group, which is defined solely on the basis of molecular data. Maybe these extinct orders are convergent too, just like the Afrosoricida were with the other insectivore groups?

Obviously this system breaks down completely when we try to classify extinct groups. Molecular biology provides only some of the answers. 153.2.246.35 (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit, while probably improving overall presentation, removed some extinct clades from the phylogeny presented. Was there a reason for this or can they be readded? CMD (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's at all settled that Atlantogenata is a valid clade. The containing taxon on the taxobox should thus probably be changed to a more stable taxon, such as Eutheria. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but this clade seems to correspond to the animals often described as "shrew-like", even though true shrews evolved later. E.g. see consestor 13 in Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale. Can we describe this as the clade that mostly remained "shrew-like" until after the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary? For now I've just linked that term here. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]