This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Synapsida article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
On 26 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Synapsid to Synapsida. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Hello, well, I have already asked this question and I'm looking for the answer:
P.S the taxa concerced must have the following model: | always_display = true except for the aves class Aves (for the Mammalia class it will be the only one to have the Synapsida taxon as a clade) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prehistoricplanes ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The references (its possible to find other references in time):
And this ? For Synapsida:
For the Dinosauria:
For Synapsids (again) [1] [2] [3]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
What's going on with File:Synapsid diversity 2.jpg on Commons? It's being edit-warred between showing an echidna and Nixon/Brezhnev in the bottom right, and the current caption here doesn't seem right: what is the "(four therapsids including two theriodonts)" referring to? -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 09:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Could we reword this to 'are no longer considered reptiles'? Historically, surely this is more down to a (justified!) change of definition of 'reptile' rather than a 'discovery' of what the word 'truly' meant, and the wording implies the latter. I understand that part of it is that previously, chelonians were considered anapsids and more basal, so that would place synapsids within the crown group of all modern reptiles, and this was shown to be false, There's a real claim refuted there. But part of it is also that the word 'reptile' was not treated as a cladistic term, but a purely paraphyletic one, excluding mammals and birds even though both were considered to arise within them anyway 9and still is one, excluding birds, as much as the word is still 'technically' used). So the wording in the article seems to be misleading about the history of what was understood - for a while, when people said 'synapsids are reptiles' they were using another definition rather than making a fundamentally false statement. Harsimaja ( talk) 18:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved nominated page, closing other disucssed pages without prejudice. The other pages partially discussed in the discussion may be renomiated so that they may be properly notified on their talk pages and properly discussed. ( non-admin closure) microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Synapsid → Synapsida – Subject of the article is a clade so the title should be at the proper clade name. "Synapsida" is more common that "Synapsid" looking on google scholar [7] [8] Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Synapsida article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
On 26 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Synapsid to Synapsida. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Hello, well, I have already asked this question and I'm looking for the answer:
P.S the taxa concerced must have the following model: | always_display = true except for the aves class Aves (for the Mammalia class it will be the only one to have the Synapsida taxon as a clade) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prehistoricplanes ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The references (its possible to find other references in time):
And this ? For Synapsida:
For the Dinosauria:
For Synapsids (again) [1] [2] [3]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
What's going on with File:Synapsid diversity 2.jpg on Commons? It's being edit-warred between showing an echidna and Nixon/Brezhnev in the bottom right, and the current caption here doesn't seem right: what is the "(four therapsids including two theriodonts)" referring to? -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 09:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Could we reword this to 'are no longer considered reptiles'? Historically, surely this is more down to a (justified!) change of definition of 'reptile' rather than a 'discovery' of what the word 'truly' meant, and the wording implies the latter. I understand that part of it is that previously, chelonians were considered anapsids and more basal, so that would place synapsids within the crown group of all modern reptiles, and this was shown to be false, There's a real claim refuted there. But part of it is also that the word 'reptile' was not treated as a cladistic term, but a purely paraphyletic one, excluding mammals and birds even though both were considered to arise within them anyway 9and still is one, excluding birds, as much as the word is still 'technically' used). So the wording in the article seems to be misleading about the history of what was understood - for a while, when people said 'synapsids are reptiles' they were using another definition rather than making a fundamentally false statement. Harsimaja ( talk) 18:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved nominated page, closing other disucssed pages without prejudice. The other pages partially discussed in the discussion may be renomiated so that they may be properly notified on their talk pages and properly discussed. ( non-admin closure) microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Synapsid → Synapsida – Subject of the article is a clade so the title should be at the proper clade name. "Synapsida" is more common that "Synapsid" looking on google scholar [7] [8] Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)