Talk:Paratheria (mammals)

Paratheria (mammals) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 17, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 16, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that according to the Paratheria hypothesis, sloths, armadillos, anteaters, and allies are neither marsupials nor placentals?

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paratheria (mammals)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Keilana (talk · contribs) 23:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ucucha, I'm working on a review and will post my thoughts here as I go along; I'll also copyedit as I go along. Thanks! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any pictures of animals included in this group?
- I added a nice sloth. Ucucha (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you gloss xenarthra?
- Yes, done. Ucucha (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the lead adequately explains what the Gondwanatheria have to do with all this. Glossing Gondwanatheria may help with this problem.
- Done. Ucucha (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He found that the "Edentata"—a group in which he included the anteaters, armadillos, and sloths that are still included in Xenarthra as well as the pangolins and the aardvark—were especially distinctive." is unwieldy and I'm afraid to rewrite it, as I don't want to screw up important facts.
- Rewritten. Ucucha (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He derived edentate teeth from the first stage in his model of mammalian dental evolution" - I'm confused as to what this means exactly.
- Thomas had a complicated model for the evolution of mammal teeth (I haven't myself tried to understand all of it), and he thought edentate teeth derived from the first stage in that model. I hope that is now clearer. Ucucha (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How did aardvarks get involved? That sentence ("Thomas was unable, however, to provide a satisfactory scenario for the origin of the aardvark's wholly unique dentition") needs a better transition/explanation.
- Thomas included aardvarks among the edentates, but it is not clear that he considered them to be part of Paratheria. I hope this is now clearer in the article. Ucucha (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the distinction between Xenarthra and Edentata in these taxonomies? I get that each taxonomist treated them differently, but I'm not getting an impression of how.
- Do you think this is clear enough now? It seems beside the point of this article to go into too much detail on other taxonomic terms. Ucucha (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does "within a cohort Paratheria" mean?
What is an infraclass?
- Both are taxonomic ranks, though cohort is a very obscure one. In this article, we're always within the class Mammalia and usually the subclass Theria; below that, there are infraclasses, cohorts, superorders, and orders. Ucucha (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is a eutherian?
- Essentially, a placental. I hope this is now clearer. Ucucha (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you gloss "pantothere"? (This isn't integral to the article, I don't think, so if you don't want to, the wikilink is fine.)
- It's another old and now-abandoned grouping. Ucucha (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could do with just one sentence at the end to wrap up and confirm for the lay reader that, yes, Paratheria isn't a thing anymore.
- Done. Ucucha (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My caveat with this is I'm not a biologist, so I'm reviewing as the average lay reader. Apologies if this is a little "Keilana-from-Boise" esque! This was one of the most educational articles I've had the pleasure of reviewing, thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I don't have time right now to respond in full (probably later today); I'll just say that the history of a concept like "Paratheria" is confused even further by frequent changes in nomenclature for other groups. I believe "Edentata" was more popular earlier, while "Xenarthra" is now, but "Edentata" also often refers to a somewhat broader group (Xenarthra is sloths, armadillos, and anteaters; Edentata adds pangolins and sometimes aardvarks). No doubt this confusion could be explained in a clearer way in the article, so I'll try to do that. Ucucha (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sloth is ridiculously cute! I also like the conclusion - I have a far better sense of how Paratheria became deprecated now. I'm still a bit confused as to what fish have to do with aardvarks, otherwise that explanation is fine. I'm also okay with the Edentata distinction; that's all I needed. Thanks! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only teeth comparable to aardvark teeth that Thomas could find were some fish teeth. I'm not sure how to make that clearer in the article. Ucucha (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]