Jump to content

Talk:Synapsida

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Synapsida as a class of non-mammalian representatives

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)[reply]

Please give sources that support treating Synapsida as a class and Dinosauria as a superorder. Plantdrew (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The references (its possible to find other references in time):

These are not considered to be reliable sources by Wikipedia. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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I'm afraid that those are all old sources that have since been outdated, and in one case (5) more or less directly says as much.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)[reply]

For the Dinosauria:

For Synapsids (again) [1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ "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)
  3. ^ 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
are all the non-mammalian synapsids extinct?142.163.194.149 (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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? --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

'Now known not to be reptiles'

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)[reply]

💯 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)[reply]

Requested move 26 March 2024

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support. I guess Therapsid, Anomodont, Dicynodont and Cynodont could also be moved. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Synapsida&oldid=1233806926"