Talk:Synapsida
Tree of Life Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Amphibians and Reptiles Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
I previously added the mammalia class, which was ommited I think in this section
Missing items in taxobox
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.) SpectrumDT 19:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
This page says there are 4500 species of mammals but the page on mammals says there are 5500. Which is right? Smeapancol 19:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
"believed to have been caused by poisonous volcanic gas"
Surely there are a whole range of theories on the causes of the Permian-Triassic event —This unsigned comment was added by 82.23.1.206 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 1 April 2006.
- You're right. I've edited the article to reflect the ambiguity. bcasterline t 00:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Clasification + Phylogeny
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 :) Dinoguy2 20:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- I love it... ;-) Fedor 12:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"Mammal-like reptiles" ??? Synapsids include mammals. Someone plese look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.232.177 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 January 2007 202.78.232.177 (UTC)
- 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 Hopefully, use of the word 'traditionally' implies that this is an outdated term. Dinoguy2 19:48, 10 January 2007 (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. Dinoguy2 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Non-Mammal Synapsid
Are there any existant non-mammal synapsids? -- 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)