Talk:Astrapotheria

References

The lead is it is now is based on the following information:

“ The 16 genera of astrapotheres (McKenna and Bell, 1997) constitute one of the most bizarre orders of mammals. They existed in South America from the late Paleocene (Itaboraian) into the middle Miocene (Friasian). Most astrapotheres were large, somewhat rhinoceros-like animals, but this description hardly does justice to their oddity. The name, which translates as “lightning beasts,” is probably an allusion to their size (analogous to North American Brontotherium—“thunder beast”—named just a few years before Astrapotherium). Rose 2006 ”

Nonetheless, the lead is far from NPOV, so I rewrote it a bit. Jalwikip (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

At present, the article is listing 18 genera. So Rose can be outdated. But in that case bring a ref. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

After Johnson & Madden (1997), Synastrapotherium is included in Xenastrapotherium. I see that the list lacks of the species Maddenia lapidaria and have to two genus called Albertograudrya and Albertogaudryia.... I think that are the same thing. Finally, in this article about Parastrapotherium Traspoatherium is a junior synonym of the species Parastrapotherium holmbergi.--Rextron (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm new to mammal dentition and classification, I reworked the classification according to your feedback, but there are still some question marks:

• subfamilies of Astrapotheriidae to be added: McKenna & Bell 1997 (I could only read page 467)
  • Allbertogaudryidae Ameghino 1901
  • Uruguaytheriinae Kraglievich 1928
  • Ablertogaudryinae Simpson 1945
• and genera:
  • Isolophodon Roth 1903
  • Uruguaytherium Kraglevich 1928

Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I've started Astrapotheriidae and also added a brief note on the lack of consensus. I guess that the classification will have to be rewritten as more fossils are being described. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And about Isolophus I've find some info, in Spanish. In any case it seems be another tooth taxon.--Rextron (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Large molars?

It says "Their lophodont molars and tusk-like canines became extremely large..."; is it not the canines alone which became extremely large? Wolf 2024 WolfGreg9 (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, the molars of astrapotheres tends to be very large, not as the canines, but definitively they were well developed, specially in the latter species.

Rextron (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)