Talk:Oreodont

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mammals
Mammals Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Mammal-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Addition of Subfamilies

I listed in the subfamilies, but, somehow, it doesn't seem to have the right format. Anyone out there want to tidy it up?

[edit] Adaptations and Such

I added info I found at the Tate museum regarding oreodonts. Not much attention is paid to their adaptations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unjustified Criticism?

The article now states "Bertrand Schultz and Charles H. Falkenbach,[4] failed to recognize the effects of taphonomic deformation of oreodont fossils after burial. As a result, they erected new genera for specimens of the same genus or even species that had been crushed in different directions.[2] Undeformed skulls would be placed in one genus, while skulls crushed from side to side would be placed in a second genus and skulls crushed from front to back would be placed in a third genus"

This is written in a way that implies that Schultz and Falkenbach made ridiculous and obvious errors. I find that highly unlikely, given their professional stature and the journal in which their work was published. Can someone with more specific knowledge address this? Ecphora (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, the erection of new species/genera on the misidentification of fossils due to damaged specimens is, unfortunately, a somewhat common occurrence in paleontology. On the other hand, why don't we rewrite the sentences to still acknowledge that mistakes were made in identification and description, but in a less accusatory manner? Something like:

Bertrand Schultz and Charles H. Falkenbach erected numerous genera, as at the time, they did not take into account that anatomical differences between different specimens were actually taphonomic deformations due to post-burial forces.

Sound better? If it doesn't, let's keep rewriting it until it does.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely better. I assume the statement is based on the sources cited in FNS 2 & 3. If so, the following might be a little more descriptive without taking sides:

Bertrand Schultz and Charles H. Falkenbach have been criticized for erecting excessive numbers of genera, based in part on apparent anatomical differences between different specimens that were actually taphonomic deformations due to post-burial forces. FN2, FN3

What do you think? Ecphora (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That's even better.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ruminant

in one line it says it wasn't a ruminant and in the next it says it was a ruminant. According to Wiki, A ruminant is any artiodactyl mammal that digests its food in two steps, first by eating the raw material and regurgitating a semi-digested form known as cud from within their first stomach, known as the rumen. The process of again chewing the cud to break down the plant matter and stimulate digestion is called ruminating.

This seems to be the way the animal is classified.199.20.2.1 (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how it is classfied. Most people classify oreodonts as members of the Tylopoda, along with protoceratids, camels, and possibly peccaries. Very very early works considered them pigs due to their short legs and prescence of canines, but now they are regarded as "short-necked llamas" in laymans terms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agriochoeridae

Don't you think Agriochoeridae should redirect here as well, seeing as they are just primitive oreodonts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agriochoeridae should have its own page, as it is distinct from Merycoidodontidae.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pliocene Oreodonts

It's popularly mentioned that oreodonts died out during the Pliocene, but, I have yet to find any source anywhere that mentions which genus or genera lived and died out in the Pliocene. Can someone help me out here?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Acording to the information on the paleobiology Database, the species Merychyus major (Ustatochoerus major) lived into the Hemphillian, which lasted from 10.3-4.9.[1] I cant tell if it made it past the Miocene Pliocene boundary though.--Kevmin (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)