Mammal

*Subclass Monotremata **Monotremata *Subclass Marsupialia **Didelphimorphia **Paucituberculata **Microbiotheria **Dasyuromorphia **Peramelemorphia **Notoryctemorphia **Diprotodontia *Subclass Placentalia **Xenarthra **Dermoptera **Desmostylia **Scandentia **Primates **Rodentia **Lagomorpha **Insectivora **Chiroptera **Pholidota **Carnivora **Perissodactyla **Artiodactyla **Cetacea **Afrosoricida **Macroscelidea **Tubulidentata **Hyracoidea **Proboscidea **Sirenia The mammals are the Class (biology) of vertebrate animals characterized by the presence of mammary glands, which in female produce milk for the nourishment of young; the presence of hair or fur; and which have endothermic or "warm-blooded" bodies. The brain regulates endothermic and circulatory systems, including a four-chambered heart. Mammals encompass some 5500 species, distributed in about 1200 genus, 152 Family (biology) and up to 46 Order (biology)s, though this varies depending on the scientific classification adopted. Phylogenetics, Mammalia is defined as all of the descendants of the last common ancestor of monotremes (e.g., echidnas) and therian mammals (placentals and marsupials). ==Characteristics== While most mammals give birth to live young, there are a few mammals (the monotreme) that lay Egg (biology)s. Live birth also occurs in a variety of non-mammalian species, such as guppy and hammerhead sharks; thus it is not a distinguishing characteristic of mammals. Birds are also endothermic. While monotremes do not have nipples, they do have mammary glands, meaning that they meet all conditions for inclusion in the class Mammalia. It should be noted that the current trend in taxonomy is to emphasize common ancestry; the diagnostic characteristics are useful for identifying this ancestry, but if, for example, a cetacean were found that had no hair at all, it would still be classified as a mammal. Mammals have three bones in each ear and one (the dentary) on each side of the lower jaw; all other vertebrates with ears have one bone (the stapes) in the ear and at least three on each side of the jaw. A group of therapsids called cynodonts had three bones in the jaw, but the main jaw joint was the dentary and the other bones conducted sound. The extra jaw bones of other vertebrates are thought to be homologous with the malleus and incus of the mammal ear. Mammals have skin made up of three layers: the outermost epidermis (skin), the dermis, and the hypodermis. All mammalian brains possess a neocortex. This brain region is unique to mammals. The epidermis is typically ten to thirty cells thick, its main function being to provide a waterproof layer. Its outermost cells are constantly lost; its bottommost cells are constantly dividing and pushing upward. The middle layer, the dermis, is fifteen to forty times thicker than the epidermis. The dermis is made up of many components such as bony structures and blood vessels. The hypodermis is made up of adipose tissue. Its job is to store lipids, and to provide cushioning and insulation. The thickness of this layer varies widely from species to species. Most mammals are terrestrial, but a number are aquatic, including dolphins and whales, which are the largest of all animals. True flight has evolved only once in mammals, the bats; mammals such as flying squirrels and flying lemurs are actually gliding animals. ==Origins== Mammals belong among the amniotes, and in particular to a group called the synapsids, distinguished by the shape of their skulls, in particular the presence of a single hole where jaw muscles attach, called temporal fenestra. In comparison, dinosaurs, birds, and most reptiles are diapsids, with two temporal fenestrae; and turtles, with no temporal fenestra, are anapsids. From synapsids came the first mammal precursors, therapsidas, and more specifically the eucynodonts, 220 million years ago (mya) during the Triassic period. Pre-mammalian ears began evolving in the late Permian to early Triassic to their current state, as three tiny bones (incus, malleus, and stapes) inside the skull; accompanied by the transformation of the lower jaw into a single bone. Other animals, including reptiles and pre-mammalian synapsids and therapsids, have several bones in the lower jaw, some of which are used for hearing; and a single ear-bone in the skull, the stapes. This transition is evidence of mammalian evolution from reptilian beginnings: from a single ear bone, and several lower jaw bones (for example the sailback pelycosaur, ''Dimetrodon'') to progressively smaller "hearing jaw bones" (for example the cynodont, ''Probainognathus''), and finally (possibly with ''Morganucodon'', but definitely with ''Hadrocodium''), true mammals with three ear bones in the skull and a single lower jaw bone. Hence pelycosaurs and cynodonts are sometimes called "mammal-like reptiles", though this is strictly incorrect since in modern parlance these two are not reptiles, but rather synapsids. During the Mesozoic Period mammals diversified into four main groups: multituberculates, monotremes, marsupials, and placentals. Multituberculates went extinct during the Oligocene, about 30 million years ago, but the three other mammal groups are all represented today. Most early mammals remained small and shrew-like throughout the Mesozoic, but rapidly developed into larger more diverse forms following the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event 65 mya. The names "Prototheria", "Metatheria" and "Eutheria" expressed the theory that Placentalia were descendants of Marsupialia, which were in turn descendants of Monotremata, but this theory has been refuted. However, Eutheria and Metatheria are often used in paleontology, especially with regards to mammals of the Mesozoic. Mammal evolutionary progression is below: * Agnatha: Cambrian period to mid Ordovician periods * Bony fish: mid-Ordovician period to late Devonian period * Amphibians: late Devonian period to early Carboniferous period * Reptiles: late Carboniferous period * Pelycosaurs (synapsids, or "mammal-like reptiles"): late Carboniferous period to very early Triassic period * Cynodonts: Permian-Triassic * Mammals: mid-Triassic period to today ===In the Mesozoic=== Most early mammals were small shrew-like animals that fed on insects. However, in January 2005, the discovery was reported of two fossils of Repenomamus around 130 million years old, one more than a meter in length, the other having remains of a baby dinosaur in its stomach (''Nature (journal)'', Jan. 15, 2005 [http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v433/n7022/full/433116b_fs.html].) The earliest mammals include: * ''Eozostrodon'': Triassic and Jurassic * ''Deltatheridium'': Cretaceous * ''Jeholodens'': mid-Cretaceous * ''Megazostrodon'': late Triassic and early Jurassic * ''Triconodont'': Triassic to Cretaceous * ''Zalambdalestes'': late Cretaceous Although mammals existed alongside the dinosaurs, mammals only began to dominate after the mass extinction of the dinosaurs 65 mya, in the Cenozoic. ===In the Paleocene=== During the next 8 million years, the Paleocene period (64–58 mya), mammals exploded into the ecological niches left by the extinction of the dinosaurs. Small rodent-like mammals still dominated, but medium and larger-sized mammals evolved. * ''Ptilodus'': multituberculate * ''Pucadelphys andinus'': an opposum-like marsupial * ''Purgatorius'': a primate-like mammal, placental * ''Ectoconus'': an early hoofed mammal, placental ==Classification== ''Main article: Mammal classification'' George Gaylord Simpson's classic "Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" (AMNH ''Bulletin'' v. 85, 1945) was the original source for the taxonomy listed here. Simpson laid out a systematics of mammal origins and relationships that was universally taught until the end of the 20th century. Since Simpson's 1945 classification, the fossil record has been recalibrated, and the intervening years have seen much debate and progress concerning the theoretical underpinnings of systematization itself, partly through the new concept of cladistics. Though field work gradually made Simpson's classification outdated, it remained the closest thing to an official classification of mammals. ===Standardized textbook classification=== A somewhat standardized classification system has been adopted by most current mammalogy classroom textbooks. The following taxonomy of extant and recently extinct mammals is taken from #References. Class Mammalia *Subclass Prototheria - monotremes: platypus and echidnas *Subclass Theria - live-bearing mammals **Infraclass Metatheria - marsupials **Infraclass Eutheria - placentals ===McKenna/Bell classification=== In 1997, the mammals were comprehensively revised by Malcolm C. McKenna and Susan K. Bell, which has resulted in the "McKenna/Bell classification". #References is the most comprehensive work to date on the systematics, relationships, and occurrences of all mammal taxa, living and extinct, down through the rank of genus. The new McKenna/Bell classification was quickly accepted by paleontologists. The authors work together as paleontologists at the American Museum of Natural History, New York. McKenna inherited the project from Simpson and, with Bell, constructed a completely updated hierarchical system, covering living and extinct taxa that reflects the historical genealogy of Mammalia. The McKenna/Bell hierarchical listing of all of the terms used for mammal groups above the species includes extinct mammals as well as modern groups, and introduces some fine distinctions such as legion (biology) and sublegions (ranks which fall between classes and orders) that are likely to be glossed over by the layman. The published re-classification forms both a comprehensive and authoritative record of approved names and classifications and a list of invalid names. Click on the highlighted link for a [http://nasa.utep.edu/chih/chklist/mammals/keys/mammtab.htm table comparing the traditional and the new McKenna/Bell classifications of mammals] Extinct groups are represented by †. Class Mammalia *Subclass Prototheria: monotremes: platypuses and echidnas *Subclass Theriiformes: live-bearing mammals and their prehistoric relatives **Infraclass †Allotheria: multituberculates **Infraclass †Triconodonta: triconodonts **Infraclass Holotheria: modern live-bearing mammals and their prehistoric relatives ***Supercohort Theria: live-bearing mammals ****Cohort Marsupialia: marsupials *****Magnorder Australidelphia: Australia marsupials and the Microbiotheriidae *****Magnorder Ameridelphia: New World marsupials ****Cohort Placentalia: placentals *****Magnorder Xenarthra: xenarthrans *****Magnorder Epitheria: epitheres ******Grandorder Anagalida: Lagomorpha, rodents, and elephant shrews ******Grandorder Ferae: carnivorans, pangolins, creodonts, and relatives ******Grandorder Lipotyphla: insectivorans ******Grandorder Archonta: bats, primates, colugos, and tree shrews ******Grandorder Ungulata: ungulates *******Order Tubulidentata ''incertae sedis'': aardvark ********Mirorder Eparctocyona: condylarths, whales, and artiodactyla ********Mirorder †Meridiungulata: South American ungulates ********Mirorder Altungulata: Perissodactyla, elephants, manatees, and hyraxes ===Molecular classification of mammals=== Molecular studies based on DNA analysis have suggested new relationships among mammal families over the last few years. The most recent classification systems based on molecular studies have proposed four groups or lineages of placental mammals. Molecular clocks suggest that these clades diverged from early common ancestors in the Cretaceous, but fossils have not been found to corroborate this hypothesis. These molecular findings are consistent with mammal zoogeography: The first divergence was that of the Afrotheria 110–100 mya. The Afrotheria proceeded to evolve and diversify in the isolation of the African-Arabian continent. The Xenarthra, isolated in South America, diverged from the Boreoeutheria approximately 100–95 mya. The Boreoeutheria split into the Laurasiatheria and Euarchontoglires between 95 and 85 mya; both of these groups evolved on the northern continent of Laurasia. After tens of millions of years of relative isolation, Africa-Arabia collided with Eurasia, exchanging Afrotheria and Boreoeutheria. The formation of the Isthmus of Panama linked South America and North America, which facilitated the exchange of mammal species in the Great American Interchange. The traditional view that no placental mammals reached Australasia until about 5 million years ago when bats and Murinae rodents arrived has been challenged by recent evidence and may need to be reassessed. It should however be noted that these molecular results are still controversial because they are not reflected by morphology data and thus not accepted by many systematists. * Group I: Afrotheria **Order Macroscelidea: elephant shrews (Africa). **Order Afrosoricida **Order Tubulidentata: aardvark (Africa south of the Sahara). **Clade Paenungulata ***Order Hyracoidea: hyraxes, dassies (Africa, Arabia). ***Order Proboscidea: elephants (Africa, Southeast Asia). ***Order Sirenia *Group II: Xenarthra **Order Xenarthra: sloths and anteaters (Neotropical) and armadillos (Neotropical and Nearctic) *Clade Boreoeutheria **Group III Euarchontoglires ***Superorder Euarchonta ****Order Scandentia: tree shrews (Southeast Asia). ****Order Dermoptera: flying lemurs or colugos (Southeast Asia). ****Order Primates: lemurs, bushbabies, monkeys, apes (cosmopolitan). ***Superorder Glires ****Order Lagomorpha: pikas, rabbits, hares (Eurasia, Africa, Americas). ****Order Rodentia: rodents (cosmopolitan) **Group IV: Laurasiatheria ***Order Insectivora: eulipotyphlan insectivorans ***Order Chiroptera: bats (cosmopolitan) ***Order Cetartiodactyla: cosmopolitan; includes former orders Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates, including pigs, hippopotamus, camels, giraffe, deer, antelope, cattle, sheep, goats). ***Clade Zooamata ****Order Perissodactyla: odd-toed ungulates ****Clade Ferae *****Order Pholidota: pangolins, scaly anteaters (Africa, South Asia). *****Order Carnivora: carnivorans (cosmopolitan) ===Classification system used in related articles=== In light of all the options available, the following classification system has been adopted for use in related articles. Class Mammalia *Subclass/Order Monotremata: egg-laying mammals **Order Monotremata: echidnas and platypus *Subclass Marsupialia: marsupials **Order Didelphimorphia: New World opossums **Order Paucituberculata: shrew opossums **Order Microbiotheria: Monito del Monte **Order Dasyuromorphia: marsupial carnivores **Order Notoryctemorphia: marsupial mole **Superorder Syndactyla: syndactylous marsupials ***Order Peramelemorphia: bandicoots and bilbies ***Order Diprotodontia: koalas, wombats, kangaroos, possums, etc. *Subclass Placentalia **Order Xenarthra: sloths, anteaters, armadillos **Order Pholidota: pangolins **Superorder Glires ***Order Rodentia: rodents ***Order Lagomorpha: rabbits, hares, and pikas **Order Macroscelidea: elephant shrews **Superorder Archonta: ***Order Primates: primates ***Order Scandentia: tree shrews ***Order Chiroptera: bats ***Order Dermoptera: colugos **Order Insectivora: shrews, tenrecs, moles, hedgehogs, etc. **Order Carnivora: dogs, cats, weasels, seals, etc. **Superorder Ungulata: ungulates ***Order Tubulidentata: aardvark ***Order Hyracoidea: hyraxes ***Order Proboscidea: elephants ***Order Sirenia: manatees, dugong ***Order Perissodactyla: horses, tapirs, rhinoceroses ***Order Artiodactyla: even-toed ungulates ***Order Cetacea: whales ==References== *McKenna, Malcolm C., and Bell, Susan K. 1997. ''Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level.'' Columbia University Press, New York, 631 pp. ISBN 0-231-11013-8 *Nowak, Ronald M. 1999. ''Walker's Mammals of the World'', 6th edition. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1936 pp. ISBN 0-801-85789-9 *Simpson, George Gaylord. 1945. "The principles of classification and a classification of mammals". ''Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History'', 85:1–350. *Springer, Mark S., Michael J. Stanhope, Ole Madsen, and Wilfried W. de Jong. 2004. "Molecules consolidate the placental mammal tree". Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19:430–438. ([http://www.zi.ku.dk/evolbiology/courses/ME04/7_9/springer200-phyl.pdf pdf version]) *Vaughan, Terry A., James M. Ryan, and Nicholas J. Capzaplewski. 2000. ''Mammalogy: Fourth Edition''. Saunders College Publishing, 565 pp. ISBN 0-030-25034-X (Brooks Cole, 1999) *Wilson, Don E., and Deeann M. Reeder (eds). 1993. ''Mammal Species of the World''. Smithsonian Institution Press, 1206 pp. ISBN 1-560-98217-9 ==See also== *List of mammals *List of prehistoric mammals *Mammal classification ==External link== *[http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~alroy/nafmsd.html North American Fossil Mammal Systematics Database.] *[http://paleocene-mammals.de/ Paleocene Mammals], an excellent site covering the rise of the mammals *[http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/Evolution.shtml Evolution of Mammals], a brief introduction to early mammals *[http://home.arcor.de/ktdykes/mesomamm.htm The Evolution of Mesozoic Mammals, a Rough Sketch], a nice informal introduction *[http://www.carnegiemnh.org/research/news.html Carnegie Museum of Natural History], some leading discoveries of early mammal fossils *[http://www.geocities.com/mammal_taxonomy/index.html Mammal Taxonomy], database of mammals of the world, updated each month *[http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/msw/ Mammal Species of the World], searchable online version of 1993 edition of ''Mammal Species of the World'' Mammals la:Mammalia li:Zoegdiere jbo:Mabru ms:Mamalia nds:S��gdeer scn:Mammifiri simple:Mammal

Mammal

== Multituberculata == Where are the multituberculates on this page? They are the only order or subclass of Mammalia to go extinct and were very succesful during the Cretaceous and early Paleogene. Should not there be mention of them on this page somewhere? User:Paleok :They're many more orders which have gone extinct (Notoungulata, Litopterna, Bibymalagasia, Astrapotheria, Condylartha and many others) and possibly also a few subclasses (what's a subclass?). They are mentioned at Mammal classification. User:Ucucha See [http://www.geocities.com/mammal_taxonomy/index.html Mammal Taxonomy] 06:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Poisonous mammals == At the :cappuccino stand today, the trivia question was to name two poisonous mammals. I thought this might be a fascinating factoid to add to the article, but I didn't want to tamper with it at this point. One poisonous mammal is the [http://www.enature.com/fieldguide/showSpeciesRECNUM.asp?recNum=MA0055 Northern Short-Tailed Shrew] (''Blarina brevicauda''). ''<>< User:tbc'' ---- :Platypus Ornithorhyncus anatinus. The male has poisonous spurs on its hind legs. One nerd point for me. :-) ----- Even more nerd trivia: poisonous or venomous? It's poisonous if you eat it, it's venomous if it eats you :-) ----- The :shrew is venomous, the :platypus is poisonous, or at least the toxin is not used for predation, but defense and/or male-male competition. At least as far as anybody's been able to tell ;) ---- The above statement about venom vs. poison is both overly simplified and misleading. Although many vemonous animals are predators, it is not a requirement. A more accurate description would hinge on how the toxin gets IN to you. A poison is eaten or breathed in (IN-gested or IN-haled). A venom is usually harmless if eaten, to do harm it must come in contact with tissue underneath the skin (IN-jected). the eyeball kid ---- I also believe that members of the Solenodontidae family and Soricidae (related) are also poisonous. These are related to the mole and look like mice. the Echidna male (Order: Monotremata... also includes the platypus) like the rest of this order all have rear ankle spurs and glands, though they don't appear to use these to inject venom g kishi ---- BOTH the Northern short tailed shrew AND the platypus are venomous, not poisonous. The male platypus uses those ankle spurs to inject the venom into anything stupid enough to grab it. THe shrew, btw, has little grooves in its teeth (not inside like a fang, but on the outside)that the venom follows into a bite wound. g kishi is right about the echidna male not using its spurs and glands. The solenodon, a large shrewlike mammal from Cuba and Haiti, produces toxic saliva that follows grooves in the teeth down into a bite wound. swede ---- Believe it or not, there is a venomous primate! The loris, a prosimian from SE Asia, secretes toxins from a sweat gland on its elbow. It will then lick the toxins, and forward-sloping teeth guide their now-toxic saliva into bite wounds. the eyeball kid == Linnaeus == Moved to talk: "(Linnaeus named the order mammals for their breasts because he wanted to encourage women to breast-feed their infants.)" :mmmmm, patriarchal hegemony in science. Why hadn't I ever heard this one!! --MichaelTinkler I think I got this from Stephen Jay Gould. Not patriarchal hegemony at all--breast-feeding one's own infant rather than hiring a wet-nurse (or, nowadays, using formula) doesn't map particularly well onto patriarchy, though it does have class elements. I'll see if I can find documentation on this. --User:Vicki Rosenzweig Okay, I did a bit of googling. At http://biology.uindy.edu/langdon/HUMANSTRATEGY01/24birth.htm I found "Lactation and suckling are perhaps the only behaviors found in all mammals and are definitive of the order. (Linnaeus, who created the name Mammalia, was a supporter of women breast-feeding their own children instead of hiring nursemaids; hence his choice of nipples, rather than hair or the placenta to define the order.)" That's a bio textbook; not conclusive, perhaps, but I think a neutral source. User:Vicki Rosenzweig again :I'm the one who moved this quote to / Talk. I like it, I just question whether it belongs in the :Mammalia entry. How about this: I think it says more about Carolus Linnaeus than it says about mammals - let's put it on the page of his article. :Moved it to Carolus Linnaeus. What do we think? :Makes sense to me. --User:Vicki Rosenzweig :I think it's interesting to know why a certain term was chosen. So there should be a way to get at that information easily. --HJH :This is probably the sort of thing where a primary source should be given as a reference. Even the reference that was given does not not say where this comes from. Even here, Michael's and Vicki's versions of the story are not the same. Michael's shorter version suggests that the story is about breast feeding versus not breast feeding at all. Vicki's at least clarifies that Linnaeus was criticizing the mostly upper class practice of using nursemaids.
Phrasing this issue in terms of male hegemony in the way in which it was probably has the effect of puttiong the male hegemonists on the opposite side of the issue to where they really are. A few years ago there was some controversy because the leadership in the pharmaceuticals industry was trying to sell baby formula - by convincing women to stop breast-feeding they could sell more formula. I would not think that the La Leche League was run by male hegemonists.
User:eclecticology Your source for the patriarchal hegemonic aspect of Linnaeus's term mammalia is Londa Schiebinger's book [http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0044409079/qid=1038063274/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_0_8/026-3819267-4926861 Nature's Body] (1993). She argues that Linnaeus's insistence on mothers breast-feeding their own children instead of farming them out to wet-nurses is an example of the patriarchal view that the woman's place is in the home, caring for the young, rather than whatever "frivolous" activities C18 upper-class women were doing when not caring for their children. Essentially he saw wet-nursing both as a contravention of nature and as an act of vanity - [mailto:quinquireme@hotmail.com Fiona C-H]. I doubt Linnaeus ever wrote "I named the order 'mammals' for their breasts because I wanted to encourage women to breast-feed their infants"? Even where historical figures did write down their opinions, they usually did so for a reason, which in turn influenced what they wrote. Take Pierre de Coubertin, for example. How much more difficult is it then to pin not just an opinion but a motive on someone. User:Aliter 22:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Whales'hair == Do whales have hair? :They sure do! Just not a whole lot of it, and not necessarily throughout their entire lives. A couple links: **http://www.whalesfilm.com/char.htm **http://www.seaworld.org/adventuremail/i5/background_janact.pdf (PDF file)------ == Ordering == Why are the orders not listed in alphabetical order? --rmhermen :It looks as though they're listed loosely by which are most closely related. user:Vicki Rosenzweig ::To an outsider like me it looks like there is no order at all in both lists (article and side bar). 'Closely related' is a bit vague. Loosely closely related even more so. User:Erik Zachte 16:29, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC) ---- I'd like to see the orders grouped into superorders. For instance, if I remember correctly, the Chiroptera, Insectivora and Primatia are in the same superorder (not sure of this; need to look this up), and the Carnivora and Pinnipedia are in the same superorder (sure of this one). user:jaknouse ---- What happened to the Insectivora? I see them split into three groups, two of which I've never heard of, and the third is a family. -User:PierreAbbat == Count == Just reading up for the hedgehog article. My encyclopedia says "over 4,000" species of mammals. sould we add this to the article? -- User:Tarquin == Structure == The third paragraph seems IMO to belong with first half of the first - defining mammals, to which some details about heart & tempture control could be added. My main references are however two to three decades old - so review of these details would be appreciated. User:Daeron == Xenarthra == What is Xenarthra doing in Afrotheria? Anyone know? == Families == Is it really a good idea to list all ''families'' here on the class page? They can easily be found through the orders, while any errors or uncertainties would only be multiplied by this approach. I have split the Family Mephitidae (the skunks) from the Family Mustelidae ino the taxonomy. Other articles on Wikipedia Mustelidae, Mephitidae, List of mammals, recognize this split, as does the ITIS, sp I think the taxonomy in the main article should also. User:Dsmdgold 15:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Classification == I have taken the liberty of changing the classification. This is following a discussion made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria. The results of that discussion show the--unfortunately small number of--correspondents in favour of adopting the Monotremata-Marsupialia-Placentalia system universally. The basic reasoning is this: most people will readily identify the subclasses with the actual animals (e.g. Marsupialia-marsupial) than with a ''-theria'' system (e.g. Metatheria-marsupial). The use of a system with three infraclasses and two subclasses (Prototheria and Theria) was rejected, on the grounds that it complicated classification but had little other uses. Suffice it to say, following these results I have made the changes mandated. Feel free to object, but it would be better done on the page given above.--User:Ingoolemo 05:28, 2004 Jul 2 (UTC) == Live birth == : ''Live birth also occurs in a variety of non-mammalian species'' Could we have one or two examples please? -- User:Tarquin 09:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) :I've added two examples. User:Gentgeen 11:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Lion image == When not logged in, the lion picture is smaller and has a cartoon-like bubble with the text "GRRRR" on it, which seems a bit of out place. But this doesn't appear when you are logged in. Any idea why this is happening? Probably should be fixed. Just my 2c, User:Matiasp 20:38, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) I kind of like it. Every good reference book has a little joke snuck in here and there. :I have put a completely different image on there now (following that vandalism). If you clear your cache, you should see the new pic. User:Chameleon— Chameleon User:Chameleon/User talk:Chameleon/User:Chameleon/Images uploaded 18:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) == Click here? == "Click on the highlighted link". The readers probably know how to follow a link, since it's unlikely they would have been able to get here if they didn't.
Also, that description may not be all that precise, since all the links to existing pages are highlighted in most Wikipedia skins, which means it refers to one out of something like three-hundred "highlighted" links. User:Aliter 22:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Overcapitalisation? == == Linguistic issues == What's ''so strangely special'' about Gorilla, Orangutan, Human, Hog-nosed Bat and Sucker-footed Bat that their names are capitalised while most other names of species (which are common nouns after all!) are not capitalised? From Capitalization: ''In English, in addition to proper nouns, proper adjectives (those derived from a name, such as Canadian, Shakespearian) are written with initial majuscules, as are the names of days of the week, months, languages, and the pronoun I. Some authors, though few if any grammar books, also treat the names of individual species of living things (animals, plants, etc) as proper nouns, and use initial majuscules for them, as in e.g. Peregrine Falcon while asserting that others, e.g. horse or person are not common names of species and should not be capitalized.'' == Age == How old can mammals get? Some cetaceans may reach more than 100 years and elephants come rather close. I'm not sure if the 100+ whale record beats the 100+ human record (excluding Bible Methuselah, Adam, and Lamech year olds of course). --User:Aranae 01:08, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) ==Taxonomy== I'm thinking of moving much the taxonomy section to a new page where it will be expanded. I thought I'd check for input before doing so. Among the questions are: *1.) What should the page be named? I'm thinking "Mammal taxonomy" *2.) What should remain behind? I'm thinking the text as it stands for each subsection and a bare outline of the big clades (subclass, infraclass, etc.) along with a parenthetical description of the animals in the clade. *3.) How do multituberculates, triconodonts, and other extinct groups fit into the taxonomy used in wikipedia? *4.) Anyone object to this plan? --User:Aranae 01:08, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) It's a good idea. 49 screens of taxa is a bit much :). 2) sounds good... though the title depends on what you want to do with the taxonomy article. If it's just lists, then the article title should reflect it ("List of mammal classifications", for instance). But if you're going to create an actual article and leave a Wikipedia:Summary style behind, a more general title like "Mammal classification" (or taxonomy) is appropriate. 3) They don't... but a taxobox standard has nothing to do with the article, which should definitely discuss the shortcomings of the major taxonomic schemes, and where modern mammals came from. User:68.81.231.127 13:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) I have moved the text. It's now at the page: Mammal classification. --User:Aranae 05:26, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC) :Excellent. User:68.81.231.127 18:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Classification of the Placentalia == Which classification do we use? McKenna & Bell, genetic or traditional? There is a separate category and page for the Afrosoricida, however, Chiroptera states that bats are members of the Archonta. We need to be consistent in these issues. I think we should use the genetic classification, but, in any case, there must be only one. User:Ucucha 09:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Well, if it has to be one, then the often controversial genetic one is certainly the worst choice. I suggest we stick to what authoritative works like McKenna&Bell state... User:Fedor 22:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::...and include all mirorders and grandorders and so on. I don't think the McK&B classification with its many categories is a good choice. The IUCN has its own Afrotheria specialist group, that seems to be a sign that the molecular classification is accepted in some way. They shouldn't have done this when the Afrotheria was as controversial as Fedor states. ::However, I don't want to say that the genetic classification must be used all the way. It might be best to use both McK&B en genetic. "In the McKenna & Bell classification scheme, bats are placed in the grandorder Archonta, however, recent genetic evidence suggests that they belong within the superorder Laurasiatheria, together with ungulates, carnivores, pangolins and eulipotyphlans" might be a good sentence. User:Ucucha 04:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Please. I already had this long discussion at the Dutch wikipedia, where you can look it up. Read , so I don't have to repeat all over again. The genetic results are unstable, highly controversial and not supported at all by the majority of morphological taxonomists. The IUCN is not a taxonomic body, but an organisation for nature conservation for whom the 'Afrotheria' is a very useful concept from a conservation point of view. That's all. I suggest we wait with integrating recent research until the results have been validated and supported by the majority of scientists. Authoritative works are a good test for validity of classification. User:Fedor 19:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) I think discussing the differing opinions is the best way to go. There's actually no reason that many of these decisions must be decided upon, even for taxoboxes. The notions of Archonta and/or Euarchonta need not be formalized, because mirorders and grandorders aren't vital to the functioning of taxoboxes. The field is in a state of debate and that debate should be reflected in the articles. Separate articles for Archonta, Laurasiatheria, Euarchonta, Euarchontoglires, and Ungulata would all be worthwhile and valid as either representing actual relationships or historic, competing hypotheses of relationships. There are some situations, such as Cetartiodactyla, where decisions should be made (though the alternatives should be mentioned). In those case, it really boils down to accuracy and scientific consensus. There we're forced to choose between authorities and I think we have to just do our best based on the data. In that regard, I think new hypotheses should be accepted if they are well supported by the data and if they are achieving some consensus. Cetartiodactyla, for example, has obtained a wide swath of molecular, morphological, and paleontological supporters. Yingochiroptera vs. Yangochiroptera is a much more controversial idea and may go the way of short-lived, poorly supported molecular hypotheses such as: Prototheria + Metatheria and guinea pigs aren't rodents. My opinion is that the Afrotheria, Glires, Euarchonta, Euarchontoglires, Laurasiatheria, Boreoeutheria, etc. are probably valid and have received enough support by the community that they should be our standards for extant taxa. They have not received enough support to warrant listing without mentioning competing hypotheses, and they have not been adequately expanded to incorporate most fossil taxa at this point. We're stuck with the old taxonomies for fossils until the fossils are re-evaluated in light of molecular results, much as the hippo-whale situation has. --User:Aranae 01:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) :Although I agree that we should present both views, I have the impression that you give the molecular results more credit than they actually deserve. If I perhaps am not aware of the latest, please enlighten me. If there is no morphological support for molecular trees, then it is way too early to warrant them validity. E.g. the latest article I know about, by Thewissen, still supports Artiodactyl monophyly, be it with Cetacea as sister-group (thus, no support for 'Cetartiodactyla'). And I have no clue as to what the morphological support for, say, Afrotheria constitutes of, or of any other of these groups. But again, feel free to enlighten me.... User:Fedor 10:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Some references for the lacking morphological support for e.g. 'Cetartiodactyla': :Thewissen: "Our cladistic analysis indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to artiodactyls than to any mesonychian. Cetaceans are not the sister group to (any) mesonychians, nor to hippopotamids. Our analysis stops short of identifying any particular artiodactyl family as the cetacean sister group and supports monophyly of artiodactyls." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11565023&dopt=Abstract] :Total evidence results: "Addition of data from recently described astragali attributed to cetaceans does not overturn artiodactyl monophyly." [http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/systbiol/issues/48_3/48_3abstracts.html#Oleary] :Molecular results possibly misleading: [http://mercury.bio.uaf.edu/~kevin_mccracken/reprints/mbe-18-917.pdf] :Cheers, User:Fedor 11:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I only want to note that the tribe Abrothrichini (Rodentia: Cricetidae: Sigmodontinae), split from the Akodontini based only on cyt b sequences, which is not supported by any morphological synapomorphy, has been supported by the majority of scientists (my impression). User:Ucucha 14:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Re: Cetartiodactyla: The molecular data is pretty tough to argue with there. There are several independent genes (including really nice SINE and LINE data) and analyses and they all say the same thing. There has also been some, although sometimes weak, morphological support. Naylor and Adams (2001, Syst Biol, 50:444-453), for example, demonstrated that O'Leary and Geisler's (1999) morphological results were the result of the dental portion of the dataset. The rest of the data suggested that the relationship shown by molecules was the accurate one. Meanwhile, Gatesy et al. (1999, Syst Biol, 48:6-20; and 2002, Syst Biol, 52:652-664) include large (>100) numbers of morphological characters in their analyses. See also Geisler and Uhen (2003, J Vert Paleontol (2003, 23:991-996). My take is that while there is debate among morphologists (admittedly I didn't realize it was still ongoing until reading your post), but you'd be hard pressed to find molecular systematists that have problems with a hippo + whale clade at this point. Again, I want to reiterate that wikipedia should present both sides of this and other arguments. --User:Aranae 01:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) ::::It is good that you acknowledge that these molecular groups are still controversial and barely backed up by any other evidence than molecules. In my experience, molecular results are not always as reliable as the give the impression to be. There have been too many nonsensical groupings (apes and rabbits f.ex.) that later had to be overturned and the different molecular trees supposedly supporting Afrotheria have the grouping jumping from branch to branch ([http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Synapsida/Eutheria/Eutheria_1.htm see here]). Pretty strange results if you ask me. Anyway, I got the impression that you were ready to overturn the current consensus and establish these controversial groups as 'fully valid'. Again: It is way too early for that. And of course we actually agree that both views should be presented. User:Fedor 08:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Ucucha makes a good point. In many cases it's a matter of molecules demonstrating molecular arguments in situations where there weren't really morphological synapomorphies to begin with. The notion of Afrotheria requires Insectivora and Ungulata to be polyphyletic. Insectivora was a wastebasket group defined on plesiomorphic morphology to begin with. Ungulata was a bit tenuous as well considering how many different ways unguligrade foot posture was produced. Anyway, we should be having these debates by upgrading the articles themselves, not their talk pages. --User:Aranae 01:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) ::::Well, sorting out a tribe with many species is one thing, overturning a consensus of major groups based on unreliable and contradictory molecular evidence is another. But this is an academic discussion and we should simply follow the consensus among scientists, in stead of slapping each other on the head with publications. I disagree that we should integrate our own discussions in the article. We should simply display the different alternatives, maybe summarize some supporting evidence and leave it at that. User:Fedor 08:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) Fedor, the papers you site ''do'' claim that Cetacea branch within the Artiodactyla. They just allow paraphyletic groups, considering it a type of monophyly, as was traditional before Hennig. In other words, the difference isn't one of phylogeny, just of approach to classification. It's equivalent to the debate over whether Reptilia is a valid class. And, as a note, even if Cetacea and Artiodactyla were sister groups, it wouldn't invalidate Cetartiodactyla (just render it unnecessary). User:Josh Grosse :Josh, that is simply untrue and I deplore that you apparantly did not properly read my sources. Two of the analyses I mentioned (the purely morphological one by Thewissen, and the total-evidence one by O'Leary), both use cladistic methods and a phylogenetic understanding of what constitutes a monophyletic group. They both write that they have evidence that Artiodactyla is not a paraphyletic group by the exclusion of Cetacea, and that the two are sister-groups instead. User:Fedor 08:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::You state that the molecular classifications are very unstable, however, morphological ones are equally unstable. The Thewissen paper you cite states that mesonychians are not the sister clade of cetaceans, but O'Leary states they are. User:Ucucha 13:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) I just put together a Cetartiodactyla page. I encourage those of you that have taken part in this discussion (particularly Fedor) to edit away at it. Please get rid of any of my own POV. --User:Aranae 03:29, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) See also Boisseri, J.-R., Lihoreau, F. & Brunet, M. 2005. The position of Hippopotamidae within Cetartiodactyla. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(5):1537-1541, 1 February 2005. [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/5/1537] Morphological support for hippo-whale. User:Ucucha 06:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Mammal Species of the World, 2nd ed == The new edition is coming out this December. Amazon has it and you can view the entire table of contents, which shows the mammalian orders, families and subfamilies. Hopefully the introduction will deal with the subclasses or superorders. I have a pre-release of the Primates order section (which includes suborders and other intermediary taxa) and have updated the relevant articles here and on Wikispecies. (As I'm typing this, I notice a discrepancy between the index and my prerelease. I'm not sure though, which is more up-to-date.) As this publication is the defacto standard all other mammal classifications are measured against, we should probably utilize it to some significant degree. What follows is the classification as listed in the index of MSW: * CLASS Mammal ** Order Monotremata *** Family Tachyglossidae *** Family Ornithorhynchidae ** Order Didelphimorphia *** Family Didelphidae **** Subfamily Caluromyinae **** Subfamily Didelphinae ** Order Paucituberculata *** Family Caenolestidae ** Order Microbiotheria *** Family Microbiotheriidae ** Order Dasyuromorphia *** Family Thylacinidae *** Family Myrmecobiidae *** Family Dasyuridae ** Order Peramelemorphia *** Family Peramelidae *** Family Peroryctidae ** Order Notoryctemorphia *** Family Notoryctidae ** Order Diprotodontia *** Family Phascolarctidae *** Family Vombatidae *** Family Phalangeridae *** Family Potoroidae *** Family Macropodidae *** Family Burramyidae *** Family Pseudocheiridae *** Family Petauridae *** Family Tarsipedidae *** Family Acrobatidae ** Order Xenarthra *** Family Bradypodidae *** Family Megalonychidae **** Subfamily Choloepinae *** Family Dasypodidae **** Subfamily Chlamyphorinae **** Subfamily Dasypodinae *** Family Myrmecophagidae ** Order Insectivora *** Family Solenodontidae *** Family Nesophontidae *** Family Tenrecidae **** Subfamily Geogalinae **** Subfamily Oryzoryctinae **** Subfamily Potamogalinae **** Subfamily Tenrecinae *** Family Chrysochloridae *** Family Erinaceidae **** Subfamily Erinaceinae **** Subfamily Hylomyinae *** Family Soricidae **** Subfamily Crocidurinae **** Subfamily Soricinae *** Family Talpidae **** Subfamily Desmaninae **** Subfamily Talpinae **** Subfamily Uropsilinae ** Order Scandentia *** Family Tupaiidae **** Subfamily Tupaiinae **** Subfamily Ptilocercinae ** Order Dermoptera *** Family Cynocephalidae ** Order Chiroptera *** Family Pteropodidae **** Subfamily Pteropodinae **** Subfamily Macroglossinae *** Family Rhinopomatidae *** Family Craseonycteridae *** Family Emballonuridae *** Family Nycteridae *** Family Megadermatidae *** Family Rhinolophidae **** Subfamily Rhinolophinae **** Subfamily Hipposiderina *** Family Noctilionidae *** Family Mormoopidae *** Family Phyllostomidae **** Subfamily Phyllostominae **** Subfamily Lonchophyllinae **** Subfamily Brachyphyllinae **** Subfamily Glossophaginae **** Subfamily Carolliinae **** Subfamily Stenodermatinae **** Subfamily Desmodontinae *** Family Natalidae *** Family Furipteridae *** Family Thyropteridae *** Family Myzopodidae *** Family Vespertilionidae **** Subfamily Kerivoulinae **** Subfamily Vespertilioninae **** Subfamily Murininae **** Subfamily Miniopterinae **** Subfamily Tomopeatinae *** Family Mystacinidae *** Family Molossidae ** Order Primates *** Family Cheirogaleidae **** Subfamily Cheirogaleinae **** Subfamily Phanerinae *** Family Lemuridae *** Family Megaladapidae *** Family Indridae *** Family Daubentoniidae *** Family Loridae *** Family Galagonidae *** Family Tarsiidae *** Family Callitrichidae *** Family Cebidae **** Subfamily Alouattinae **** Subfamily Aotinae **** Subfamily Atelinae **** Subfamily Callicebinae **** Subfamily Cebinae **** Subfamily Pitheciinae *** Family Cercopithecidae **** Subfamily Cercopithecinae **** Subfamily Colobinae *** Family Hylobatidae *** Family Hominidae ** Order Carnivora *** Family Canidae *** Family Felidae **** Subfamily Acinonychinae **** Subfamily Felinae **** Subfamily Pantherinae *** Family Herpestidae **** Subfamily Galidiinae **** Subfamily Herpestinae *** Family Hyaenidae **** Subfamily Hyaeninae **** Subfamily Protelinae *** Family Mustelidae **** Subfamily Lutrinae **** Subfamily Melinae **** Subfamily Mellivorinae **** Subfamily Mephitinae **** Subfamily Mustelinae **** Subfamily Taxidiinae *** Family Odobenidae *** Family Otariidae *** Family Phocidae *** Family Procyonidae **** Subfamily Potosinae **** Subfamily Procyoninae *** Family Ursidae **** Subfamily Ailurinae **** Subfamily Ursinae *** Family Viverridae **** Subfamily Cryptoproctinae **** Subfamily Euplerinae **** Subfamily Hemigalinae **** Subfamily Nandniinae **** Subfamily Paradoxurinae **** Subfamily Viverrinae ** Order Cetacea *** Family Balaenidae *** Family Balaenopteridae *** Family Eschrichtiidae *** Family Neobalaenidae *** Family Delphinidae *** Family Monodontidae *** Family Phocoenidae *** Family Physeteridae *** Family Platanistidae *** Family Ziphiidae ** Order Sirenia *** Family Dugongidae *** Family Trichechidae ** Order Proboscidea *** Family Elephantidae ** Order Perissodactyla *** Family Equidae *** Family Tapiridae *** Family Rhinocerotidae ** Order Hyracoidea *** Family Procaviidae ** Order Tubulidentata *** Family Orycteropodidae ** Order Artiodactyla *** Family Suidae **** Subfamily Babyrousinae **** Subfamily Phacochoerinae **** Subfamily Suinae *** Family Tayassuidae *** Family Hippopotamidae *** Family Camelidae *** Family Tragulidae *** Family Giraffidae *** Family Moschidae *** Family Cervidae **** Subfamily Cervinae **** Subfamily Hydropotinae **** Subfamily Muntiacinae **** Subfamily Capreolinae *** Family Antilocapridae *** Family Bovidae **** Subfamily Aepycerotinae **** Subfamily Alcelaphinae **** Subfamily Antilopinae **** Subfamily Bovinae **** Subfamily Caprinae **** Subfamily Cephalophinae **** Subfamily Hippotraginae **** Subfamily Peleinae **** Subfamily Reduncinae ** Order Pholidota *** Family Manidae ** Order Rodentia *** Suborder Sciurognathi **** Family Aplodontidae **** Family Sciuridae ***** Subfamily Sciurinae ***** Subfamily Pteromyinae **** Family Castoridae **** Family Geomyidae **** Family Heteromyidae ***** Subfamily Dipodomyinae ***** Subfamily Heteromyinae ***** Subfamily Peroghathinae **** Family Dipodidae ***** Subfamily Allactaginae ***** Subfamily Cardiocraniinae ***** Subfamily Dipodinae ***** Subfamily Euchoreutinae ***** Subfamily Paradipodinae ***** Subfamily Sicistinae ***** Subfamily Zapodinae **** Family Muridae ***** Subfamily Arvicolinae ***** Subfamily Calomyscinae ***** Subfamily Cricetinae ***** Subfamily Cricetomyinae ***** Subfamily Dendromurinae ***** Subfamily Gerbillinae ***** Subfamily Lophiomyinae ***** Subfamily Murinae ***** Subfamily Myospalacinae ***** Subfamily Mystromyinae ***** Subfamily Nesomyinae ***** Subfamily Otomyinae ***** Subfamily Petromyscinae ***** Subfamily Platacanthomyinae ***** Subfamily Rhizomyinae ***** Subfamily Sigmodontinae ***** Subfamily Spalacinae **** Family Anomaluridae ***** Subfamily Anomalurinae ***** Subfamily Zenkerellinae **** Family Pedetidae **** Family Ctenodactylidae **** Family Myoxidae ***** Subfamily Graphiurinae ***** Subfamily Leithiinae ***** Subfamily Myoxinae *** Suborder Hystricognathi **** Family Bathyergidae **** Family Hystricidae **** Family Petromuridae **** Family Thryonomyidae **** Family Erethizontidae **** Family Chinchillidae **** Family Dinomyidae **** Family Caviidae ***** Subfamily Caviinae ***** Subfamily Dolichotinae **** Family Hrdrochaeridae **** Family Dasyproctidae **** Family Agoutidae **** Family Ctenomyidae **** Family Octodontidae **** Family Abrocomidae **** Family Echimyidae ***** Subfamily Chaetomyinae ***** Subfamily Dactylomyinae ***** Subfamily Echimyinae ***** Subfamily Eumysopinae ***** Subfamily Heteropsomyinae **** Family Capromyidae ***** Subfamily Capromyinae ***** Subfamily Hexolobodontinae ***** Subfamily Isolobodontinae ***** Subfamily Plagiodontinae **** Family Heptaxodontidae ***** Subfamily Clidomyinae ***** Subfamily Heptaxodontinae **** Family Myocastoridae ** Order Lagomorpha *** Family Ochotonidae *** Family Leporidae ** Order Macroscelidea *** Family Macroscelididae (Whew! Any typos are the fault of the lenght of this list, and not because I'm doing this so late while on vacation. Um... yeah.) - User:UtherSRG 04:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) Uther, I hate to be the bearer of bad news after all that work, but this is the table of contents for the 2nd edition dated 1993. The version coming out this fall (2005) is the third edition. There will be a number of changes from this list. --User:Aranae 05:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) :Doh! Ah well.... that would explain the differences between the Primate section I already have and the index. *sigh* :I have the real TOC for 3rd ed. (as well as some parts [Australian marsupials, monotremes, lagomorphans, primates]), but I don't think it's fair to the authors to pre-publish it here already. User:Ucucha See [http://www.geocities.com/mammal_taxonomy/index.html Mammal Taxonomy] 19:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

M

MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |

Words begining with Mammal:

Mammal
Mammal
Mammal-like_reptile
Mammal-like_reptiles
Mammal-stub
MammaLia
Mammalia
Mammalia
Mammalian
Mammalian_diving_reflex
Mammalian_embryogenesis
Mammalian_embryogenesis
Mammalian_Embryonic_Diapause
Mammalian_embryonic_diapause
Mammalian_embryonic_diapause
Mammalian_pregnancy
Mammalian_pregnancy
Mammalogy
Mammals
Mammals
Mammals
Mammals
Mammals
Mammals
Mammals
Mammal_classification
Mammal_classification
Mammal_stubs
Mammal_taxonomy
Mammal_Taxonomy_Poll