Talk:Synapsida: Difference between revisions
Non-Mammal Synapsid |
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30) |
||
(157 intermediate revisions by 61 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
||
{{ |
{{WikiProject Animals|importance=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject Mammals|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Palaeontology|importance=high}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{atnhead|noredlinks=y}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|||
|counter = 1 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(90d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Synapsida/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Old move |date=26 March 2024 |from=Synapsid |destination=Synapsida |result=moved |link=Special:Permalink/1217053173#Requested move 26 March 2024}} |
|||
==Synapsida as a class of non-mammalian representatives== |
|||
I previously added the mammalia class, which was ommited I think in this section |
|||
Hello, well, I have already asked this question and I'm looking for the answer: |
|||
*1) And what can Synapsida rank shift to the class category for all non-mammalian representatives? |
|||
*2) And what can you move the Dinosauria rank to the rank of Super-order and not as a vulgar clade? |
|||
P.S the taxa concerced must have the following model: | always_display = true except for the aves class Aves (for the Mammalia class it will be the only one to have the Synapsida taxon as a clade) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Prehistoricplanes|Prehistoricplanes]] ([[User talk:Prehistoricplanes#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Prehistoricplanes|contribs]]) 17:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Missing items in taxobox == |
|||
:Please give sources that support treating Synapsida as a class and Dinosauria as a superorder. [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 19:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
The subgroups of pelycosaurs and caseasaurs are covered in the text. Ought these not to be included in the taxobox as well? (I would add them myself, but I know little of the science of taxonomy and might easily do something stupid, so I would prefer to leave it to someone who knows what they are doing.) [[User:SpectrumDT|SpectrumDT]] 19:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The references (its possible to find other references in time): |
|||
This page says there are 4500 species of mammals but the page on [[mammals]] says there are 5500. Which is right? [[User:Smeapancol|Smeapancol]] 19:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*[http://petrifiedwoodmuseum.org/SOSynapsids.htm] |
|||
== "believed to have been caused by poisonous volcanic gas" == |
|||
*[https://books.google.ge/books?id=feMItLo5gwgC&pg=PA421&lpg=PA421&dq=superorder+dinosauria&source=bl&ots=SdSTVg_HQt&sig=ACfU3U0V9IFo45nDCvTZbiSSK9aNKGfx5g&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxwYq2j8_mAhVC-aQKHdLVDnwQ6AEwEXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=superorder%20dinosauria&f=false] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Prehistoricplanes|Prehistoricplanes]] ([[User talk:Prehistoricplanes#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Prehistoricplanes|contribs]]) 20:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:These are not considered to be reliable sources by Wikipedia. ''[[User:Lythronaxargestes|Lythronaxargestes]]'' ([[User talk:Lythronaxargestes#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lythronaxargestes|contribs]]) 22:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
And this ? |
|||
Surely there are a whole range of theories on the causes of the Permian-Triassic event <small>—This [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:82.23.1.206|82.23.1.206]] ([[User talk:82.23.1.206|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/82.23.1.206|contribs]]) 23:45, 1 April 2006.</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned] --> |
|||
For Synapsida: |
|||
:You're right. I've edited the article to reflect the ambiguity. [[User:Bcasterline|bcasterline]] [[User_talk:Bcasterline|t]] 00:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*[http://tolweb.org/Synapsida] |
|||
*[https://books.google.ge/books?id=Mqv4Lo1vpk4C&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=class+synapsida+phylogeny&source=bl&ots=L3aerAinzf&sig=ACfU3U1Y853LrOBIYi21DKuLKxURNFO5vw&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7t6_qg9DmAhWqPOwKHa2_DysQ6AEwF3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=class%20synapsida%20phylogeny&f=false] |
|||
*[https://books.google.ge/books?id=YtW_DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=class+synapsida+phylogeny&source=bl&ots=Bay1nBEqCF&sig=ACfU3U3TFlFYly61Gnry9HjNaYnopkSQdw&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7t6_qg9DmAhWqPOwKHa2_DysQ6AEwGnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=class%20synapsida%20phylogeny&f=false] |
|||
:I'm afraid that those are all old sources that have since been outdated, and in one case (5) more or less directly says as much. [[User:Anaxial|Anaxial]] ([[User talk:Anaxial|talk]]) 07:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Clasification + Phylogeny == |
|||
For the Dinosauria: |
|||
I've switched the classification scheme we had into two parts- classification and taxonomy. This seems to work a bit better aesthetically, as it removes unranked taxa from the ranked list, and presents an unambiguous cladogram to better reflect evolutionary relationships. I welcome discussion on this, and will accept if it's met with universal hatred and gets reverted :) [[User:Dinoguy2|Dinoguy2]] 20:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=super-order+Dinosaur+phylogeny&hl=fr&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DA0qJqFyxCmIJ] |
|||
For Synapsids (again) |
|||
:I love it... ;-) [[User:Fedor|Fedor]] 12:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
<ref name=BRJ12>{{cite journal |last=Benson |first=R.J. |year=2012 |title=Interrelationships of basal synapsids: cranial and postcranial morphological partitions suggest different topologies |journal=Journal of Systematic Palaeontology |volume=10 |issue=4 |pages=601–624 |doi=10.1080/14772019.2011.631042 }}</ref><ref name="Fröbischetal2011">{{cite journal |authors=Jörg Fröbisch, Rainer R. Schoch, Johannes Müller, Thomas Schindler and Dieter Schweiss |year=2011 |title=A new basal sphenacodontid synapsid from the Late Carboniferous of the Saar-Nahe Basin, Germany |url=http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app56/app20100039.pdf |journal=Acta Palaeontologica Polonica |volume=56 |issue=1 |pages=113–120 |doi=10.4202/app.2010.0039}}</ref><ref>https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c44/ab6ded322debc7895dba871e4b06ea2a36f1.pdf</ref> |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
: I don't have access to the first of those, but the other two don't support the claim, so far as I can see, since neither use "class" as a taxonomic rank anywhere in the text. [[User:Anaxial|Anaxial]] ([[User talk:Anaxial|talk]]) 15:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: I have access to the first and the word "class" does not appear. But I think the central contention here is that Synapsida does not include mammals. I'm sorry, but it does - that's modern consensus, you can't impose what you think here. Indeed you will note that the very first sentence of the first paper says "Synapsida comprises Mammalia and all taxa more closely related to mammals than any other group of extant vertebrates (i.e. the mammalian total group)." ''[[User:Lythronaxargestes|Lythronaxargestes]]'' ([[User talk:Lythronaxargestes#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lythronaxargestes|contribs]]) 21:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:are all the non-mammalian synapsids extinct?[[Special:Contributions/142.163.194.149|142.163.194.149]] ([[User talk:142.163.194.149|talk]]) 22:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Infobox image == |
|||
What's going on with [[:File:Synapsid diversity 2.jpg]] on Commons? It's being edit-warred between showing an echidna and Nixon/Brezhnev in the bottom right, and the current caption here doesn't seem right: what is the "(four therapsids including two theriodonts)" referring to? --[[User:Lord Belbury|Lord Belbury]] ([[User talk:Lord Belbury|talk]]) 09:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
"Mammal-like reptiles" ??? Synapsids include mammals. Someone plese look into this. {{unsigned|202.78.232.177|22:16, 9 January 2007 202.78.232.177}} |
|||
:(WikiProject Palaeontology noticed a couple of weeks later and it's being discussed at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Synapsids_are_not_reptiles]].) --[[User:Lord Belbury|Lord Belbury]] ([[User talk:Lord Belbury|talk]]) 17:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== 'Now known not to be reptiles' == |
|||
:The key here is 'traditionally'. Traditionally Synapsids did ''not'' include mammals, but were treated as a subclass of Reptilia. Hopefully, use of the word 'traditionally' implies that this is an outdated term. [[User:Dinoguy2|Dinoguy2]] 19:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Could we reword this to 'are no longer considered reptiles'? Historically, surely this is more down to a (justified!) change of definition of 'reptile' rather than a 'discovery' of what the word 'truly' meant, and the wording implies the latter. I understand that part of it is that previously, chelonians were considered anapsids and more basal, so that would place synapsids within the crown group of all modern reptiles, and this was shown to be false, There's a real claim refuted there. But part of it is also that the word 'reptile' was not treated as a cladistic term, but a purely paraphyletic one, excluding mammals and birds even though both were considered to arise within them anyway 9and still is one, excluding birds, as much as the word is still 'technically' used). So the wording in the article seems to be misleading about the history of what was understood - for a while, when people said 'synapsids are reptiles' they were using another definition rather than making a fundamentally false statement. [[User:Harsimaja|Harsimaja]] ([[User talk:Harsimaja|talk]]) 18:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I think i should combine mammals with synapsids. Because they're in the same class right? We should do the same thing with birds put into reptiles. [[User:4444hhhh]] |
|||
:I don't think they've ever been put in the same class. Synapsids, in phylogenetic taxonomy, include mammals, but this system does not use any kind of ranks. Traditionally, Synapsids have been ranked as a Subclass of Class Reptilia. More recently, Benton ranked them as a Class seperate from reptiles and paraphyletic with respect to mammals (that is, it doesn't include mammals, because they were kept in a seperate class. As far as I know, creating a class that includes all synapsids would be original research. Same for reptiles and birds, though a new class is sometimes used for ''dinosaurs'' and birds, usually either Dinosauria or Archosauria. But the dinosaur wikiproject has decided to use Benton's scheme for them as well, and he uses Class Sauropsida for reptiles and class Aves for birds. [[User:Dinoguy2|Dinoguy2]] 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:💯 Ðat's my þought exactly, so I've just set ðe article text right accordingly. Saying ðat a textbook from 50 years ago mistakenly call synapsids "mammal-like reptiles" is incorrect, for what ðe textbook means by "reptile" is ''not-mammalian and non-bird amniote'', and non-mammal synapsids are indeed not-mammalian and non-bird amniotes. However, if ðe textbook uses "synapsid" cladistically, it ''is'' wrong insofar as it ðen calls all synapsids, including mammals, "non-mammalian". Since "reptile" used to mean any amniote ðat's neiðer a mammal nor a bird, I find it natural ðat "reptile" be cladistically defined anew to mean ðe same as "amniote". Accordingly, I disapprove of ðe current, IMHO too narrow definition of "reptile". Isn't it ðe most natural þing to redefine a paraphyletic term as ðe smallest clade including ðe paraphyletic taxon raðer ðan as a mere sub-clade ðereof? [[User:Kniva Keisarabani the Goth|Kniva Keisarabani the Goth]] ([[User talk:Kniva Keisarabani the Goth|talk]]) 18:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Non-Mammal Synapsid == |
|||
== Requested move 26 March 2024 == |
|||
Are there any existant non-mammal synapsids? -- 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|||
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|||
The result of the move request was: '''Moved''' nominated page, closing other disucssed pages without prejudice. The other pages partially discussed in the discussion may be renomiated so that they may be properly notified on their talk pages and properly discussed. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User:MicrobiologyMarcus|<span style="font-size:70%; font-family:serif">microbiology</span>Marcus]] <sup>[''[[User talk:MicrobiologyMarcus|petri dish]]·[[Special:Contributions/MicrobiologyMarcus|growths]]'']</sup> 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
[[:Synapsid]] → {{no redirect|Synapsida}} – Subject of the article is a clade so the title should be at the proper clade name. "Synapsida" is more common that "Synapsid" looking on google scholar [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22synapsida%22&btnG=] [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22synapsid%22&btnG=] [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Support''' per nom, appears to be an effect of Wikipedia previously attempting to prioritize common names in the past. [[User:PrimalMustelid|PrimalMustelid]] ([[User talk:PrimalMustelid|talk]]) 23:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Support'''. I guess [[Therapsid]], [[Anomodont]], [[Dicynodont]] and [[Cynodont]] could also be moved. —<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''[[User:Trilletrollet|<span style="color:mediumvioletred">Trilletrollet</span>]]'''</span> <small>[ [[User talk:Trilletrollet|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Trilletrollet|Contribs]] ]</small> 00:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Support''' these additional moves as well.--[[User:Ortizesp|Ortizesp]] ([[User talk:Ortizesp|talk]]) 13:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Support''' per the nomination. I would also advise following through with Trilletrollet's suggestion. [[User:The Morrison Man|The Morrison Man]] ([[User talk:The Morrison Man|talk]]) 00:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' per nom.--[[User:Ortizesp|Ortizesp]] ([[User talk:Ortizesp|talk]]) 13:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] --> |
|||
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> |
Latest revision as of 00:18, 11 July 2024
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Synapsida article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
On 26 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Synapsid to Synapsida. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Synapsida as a class of non-mammalian representatives
[edit]Hello, well, I have already asked this question and I'm looking for the answer:
- 1) And what can Synapsida rank shift to the class category for all non-mammalian representatives?
- 2) And what can you move the Dinosauria rank to the rank of Super-order and not as a vulgar clade?
P.S the taxa concerced must have the following model: | always_display = true except for the aves class Aves (for the Mammalia class it will be the only one to have the Synapsida taxon as a clade) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prehistoricplanes (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Please give sources that support treating Synapsida as a class and Dinosauria as a superorder. Plantdrew (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The references (its possible to find other references in time):
- [1]
- [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prehistoricplanes (talk • contribs) 20:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- These are not considered to be reliable sources by Wikipedia. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
And this ? For Synapsida:
- I'm afraid that those are all old sources that have since been outdated, and in one case (5) more or less directly says as much. Anaxial (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
For the Dinosauria:
For Synapsids (again) [1][2][3]
References
- ^ Benson, R.J. (2012). "Interrelationships of basal synapsids: cranial and postcranial morphological partitions suggest different topologies". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 10 (4): 601–624. doi:10.1080/14772019.2011.631042.
- ^ "A new basal sphenacodontid synapsid from the Late Carboniferous of the Saar-Nahe Basin, Germany" (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 56 (1): 113–120. 2011. doi:10.4202/app.2010.0039.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|authors=
ignored (help) - ^ https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c44/ab6ded322debc7895dba871e4b06ea2a36f1.pdf
- I don't have access to the first of those, but the other two don't support the claim, so far as I can see, since neither use "class" as a taxonomic rank anywhere in the text. Anaxial (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have access to the first and the word "class" does not appear. But I think the central contention here is that Synapsida does not include mammals. I'm sorry, but it does - that's modern consensus, you can't impose what you think here. Indeed you will note that the very first sentence of the first paper says "Synapsida comprises Mammalia and all taxa more closely related to mammals than any other group of extant vertebrates (i.e. the mammalian total group)." Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- are all the non-mammalian synapsids extinct?142.163.194.149 (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Infobox image
[edit]What's going on with File:Synapsid diversity 2.jpg on Commons? It's being edit-warred between showing an echidna and Nixon/Brezhnev in the bottom right, and the current caption here doesn't seem right: what is the "(four therapsids including two theriodonts)" referring to? --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- (WikiProject Palaeontology noticed a couple of weeks later and it's being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Synapsids_are_not_reptiles.) --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
'Now known not to be reptiles'
[edit]Could we reword this to 'are no longer considered reptiles'? Historically, surely this is more down to a (justified!) change of definition of 'reptile' rather than a 'discovery' of what the word 'truly' meant, and the wording implies the latter. I understand that part of it is that previously, chelonians were considered anapsids and more basal, so that would place synapsids within the crown group of all modern reptiles, and this was shown to be false, There's a real claim refuted there. But part of it is also that the word 'reptile' was not treated as a cladistic term, but a purely paraphyletic one, excluding mammals and birds even though both were considered to arise within them anyway 9and still is one, excluding birds, as much as the word is still 'technically' used). So the wording in the article seems to be misleading about the history of what was understood - for a while, when people said 'synapsids are reptiles' they were using another definition rather than making a fundamentally false statement. Harsimaja (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- 💯 Ðat's my þought exactly, so I've just set ðe article text right accordingly. Saying ðat a textbook from 50 years ago mistakenly call synapsids "mammal-like reptiles" is incorrect, for what ðe textbook means by "reptile" is not-mammalian and non-bird amniote, and non-mammal synapsids are indeed not-mammalian and non-bird amniotes. However, if ðe textbook uses "synapsid" cladistically, it is wrong insofar as it ðen calls all synapsids, including mammals, "non-mammalian". Since "reptile" used to mean any amniote ðat's neiðer a mammal nor a bird, I find it natural ðat "reptile" be cladistically defined anew to mean ðe same as "amniote". Accordingly, I disapprove of ðe current, IMHO too narrow definition of "reptile". Isn't it ðe most natural þing to redefine a paraphyletic term as ðe smallest clade including ðe paraphyletic taxon raðer ðan as a mere sub-clade ðereof? Kniva Keisarabani the Goth (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 26 March 2024
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved nominated page, closing other disucssed pages without prejudice. The other pages partially discussed in the discussion may be renomiated so that they may be properly notified on their talk pages and properly discussed. (non-admin closure) microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Synapsid → Synapsida – Subject of the article is a clade so the title should be at the proper clade name. "Synapsida" is more common that "Synapsid" looking on google scholar [7] [8] Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom, appears to be an effect of Wikipedia previously attempting to prioritize common names in the past. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I guess Therapsid, Anomodont, Dicynodont and Cynodont could also be moved. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support these additional moves as well.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per the nomination. I would also advise following through with Trilletrollet's suggestion. The Morrison Man (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- C-Class animal articles
- High-importance animal articles
- WikiProject Animals articles
- C-Class mammal articles
- Mid-importance mammal articles
- WikiProject Mammals articles
- C-Class Palaeontology articles
- High-importance Palaeontology articles
- C-Class Palaeontology articles of High-importance
- WikiProject Palaeontology articles