This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I thought that the exact position of Cephalogale within the Ursoidea is not completely resolved and it could belong to either the Ursidae or the Hemicyonidae? Although I admit this statement is weak without a source - I will look for a source immediately. DaMatriX ( talk) 00:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

here, the genus Cephalogale was assigned to subfamily Hemicyoninae; 2 and 3 follow the same line. Burmeister ( talk) 14:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Currently, the Hemicyonidae are treated as a family on Wikipedia. If you believe this may not be correct, please discuss this on the Hemicyonidae talkpage. DaMatriX ( talk) 18:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply