Talk:Therapsida
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
Therapsida is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use amphibians and reptiles resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
For lack of a better name, perhaps Therapsida should be placed in a taxon called a subsuperclass. What do you think? --Ingoolemo 01:22, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)
It'd probably be better not to try to combine the Linnean and Cladistic systems in this way. The cladistic system has an indefinite number of branches; these aren't the same as the linnean hierarchies of Class, Phylum, etc. My own take (others may disagree) is that the cladistic phylogeny and linnean hierarchy are two distinct but complementary approaches to the classification of life.
For a generic cladistic taxonomic "rank" one can always say "plesion" (I think technically every clade is (or can be called) a "plesion") --M Alan Kazlev 23:31 (AEST), 2005 Feb 20
It would be very useful if someone could add the characteristics of Therapsida that distinguish it from other sub-clades of synapsida. When I google, all I find are some vague hints about "differences in posture". Vasi 11:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought all therapsids became extinct at the end of the Triassic, and the taxobox said they made it into the Cretaceous. What therapsids existed then? Giant Blue Anteater 02:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- A number of non-mammalian therapsids lived into the Jurassic, and at least two genera (Xenocretosuchus and and unnamed form from Japan) lived into the EK.Dinoguy2 15:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite needed
Not wishing to be rude to anyone but yesterday's rewrite of a large section of this article needs a 'going over' by someone who has reliable knowledge of the subject, so that sense is not lost in editing. I'd do it myself but I'm not confident enough on the factual side. Grammar and punctuation in need of a serious 'spring clean'. - Ballista 05:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What are they?
In a fit of ignorance, I called these things dinosaurs. Somebody improved that by calling them reptiles. But the article (now that I've read it more closely) clarifies that they weren't exactly reptiles, either. What made me originally call them dinosaurs is that they are long extinct, and that fact wasn't mentioned in the lead. Now I've changed it so they are no longer "dinosaurs," or "reptiles," but merely "extinct." If somebody has something better, please have at it. Skyrocket654 (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
