Talk:Adapidae

Ancient adapids?

The article says that "ancient adapids lacked many of the anatomical specializations characteristic of living strepsirrhines, such as a tooth comb, a grooming claw on the second pedal digit, and a reduction in the size of the promontory branch of the internal carotid artery"

I know of no other adapid fossils except Darwinius (Ida) which lack these characteristics. Given the fact that that specimen has been rejected as a reliable specimen for describing morphology based on her crushed dentition that she is a juvenile, should this sentence be included as it is stating as fact something that is still very much in debate (and likely is incorrect).

Reference: Convergent evolution of anthropoid-like adaptations in Eocene adapiform primates, Nature, 22 October 2009, pages 1118-1121

Cirripedius (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you never got an answer. The toothcomb of extant strepsirrhines is only found within the lemur/lorisiform clade, of which adapids were not a part. (The reference to the toothcomb with Ida demonstrated a common misconception among primatologists and, surprisingly, some paleoanthropologists.) The evolutionary history of the grooming claw has recently been called into question, and many fossils will now need to be reevaluated. I plan to cover all of this when I re-write both toothcomb and grooming claw articles very soon. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the promontory branch of the internal carotid artery in living strepsirrhines vs. adapiforms.

In short, the statement is probably correct, except for the possible issue of the grooming claw. However, early primate evolution and primitive primate fossils are poorly understood by anyone outside of paleoanthropology. Much of the contention over the evolution of simians and toothcombed strepsirrhines is starting to recede, but meanwhile, many related branches of science still hold antiquated views about early primate evolution due to a lack of interdisciplinary study and a underemphasis on paleontology. Since toothcombed primates did not evolve from adapids, the statement can stand. – Maky ^« talk » 06:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Adapidae. Favonian (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Adapid → Adapidae – Fossil groups are not titled by names derived from their taxon name (e.g. adapiform -> Adapiformes, notharctid -> Notharctidae). – Maky ^« talk » 05:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename per above. – Maky ^« talk » 05:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

rename sounds good to me. Consistency is a fine rationale. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.