Talk:Cetartiodactyla

2005-04-09

If this coinage was introduced in Grauer, D. and D. Higgins. 1994. it should be attributed to them. --Wetman 06:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2006-02-14

According to the animal diversity website (university of michigan), the super order of the cetartiodactyla is exist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.148.204 (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

More common

There was a recent edit switching things around, stating that the term is most comonly used to unite the two orders at a superordinal level instead of uniting the two into a single order. I have seen almost no incident where the term is used uniting them at a superordinal level, but there was a period where it seemed almost half the issues of Systematic Biology were using the term to refer to the unification into a single order. There were also other odd changes such as instead of calling Cetartiodactyla a clade, the edit called it a "phylogeny". Mostly it seemed to be an edit from an informed user so I thought it would be prudent to explain my reversion. --Aranae 16:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomic level

Where should this really fit in? I am in discussion with Eli Falk about the validity of this taxon, but its position is perhaps more problematic. It is clearly not a superorder, as that is already filled by Ungulata, and (at present at least) it is not an Order, as those are filled by Artiodactyla and Cetacea...so just what is this taxon??? --GRM 21:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

We could call it an "order", as suggested above in the "More Common" section above. Or, we could call it a "superorder" and abandon Ungulata, which may be polyphyletic anyway. Someone has already started doing that in lots of taxoboxes. Remember though, there are more inclusive nodes such as Laurasiatheria that have to fit in too.

If we decide settle the rank, there are other problems. There are two views on the relationship of whales and artiodactyls. Are Artiodactyla and Cetacea are sister clades, or is Cetacea is nested within Artiodactyla? The latter seems more likely now, but then there's a case to be made that the overall clade should just be called Artiodactyla, since whales are just derived members of that clade. "Cetartiodactyla" would then be an unnecessary name. But if we do use the name Cetartiodactyla, that still leaves the option of either recognizing a paraphyletic subgroup Artiodactyla, in addition to Cetacea, or only recognizing clades within Cetartiodactyla.

In my opinion, there are too many nodes in the tree of life to assign a named rank to every one. We could come up with a rank like "sub-superorder", but would that really clarify anything? Most of the literature doesn't seem to apply a rank to Cetartiodactyla, so it may be best to leave it unranked.

Cheers, Cephal-odd 02:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's just say that Cetartiodactyla is an unranked order. 84.13.94.105 (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Higher-level of modern cetartiodactyls

Arnason et. al. (2004) officially coined Cetancodonta to include Ancodonta (anthracotheres and hippos) and Cetacea. Their genetic analyses provide greater support for the clade Cetruminantia Waddell et. al., 1999, a clade erected to include not only cetancodonts but also ruminants. Cetartiodactyla includes not only cetruminants but also suines and tylopods. The clade Suina is closer to Cetruminantia than to Tylopoda. For this reason, the Taxobox should be updated.

P. J. Waddell, N. Okada, and M. Hasegawa. 1999. Towards resolving the interordinal relationships of placental mammals. Systematic Biology 48(1):1-5.

U. Arnason, A. Gullberg, and A. Janke. 2004. Mitogenomic analyses provide new insights into cetacean origin and evolution. Gene 333:27-34. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

This is not correct. Cetancodonta was coined in 2000. Arnason U, Gullberg A, Gretarsdottir S, Ursing B, Janke A2000 The mitochondrial genome of the sperm whale and a new molecular reference for estimating eutherian divergence dates Journal of Molecular Evolution, 50:569-578 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.165.14 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Suina

Hello? Hi. I'm just finished making the article (Suina). Can someone edit it and suggest ideas to me on my userpage or on Talk:Suina? Thanks :) 4444hhhh 02:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)4444hhhh

Doesn't make sense

This section of "A clade apart" doesn't make sense: "However, the most recent theory into the origins of hippopotamidae suggests that hippos and whales shared a common semi-aquatic ancestor that branched off from other Artiodactyls around 60 million years ago.[1][2] This hypothesized ancestral group likely split into two branches around 54 million years ago.[3] One branch would evolve into cetaceans, possibly beginning with the proto-whale Pakicetus from 52 million years ago with other early whale ancestors collectively known as Archaeoceti, which eventually underwent aquatic adaptation into the completely aquatic cetaceans.[4] Thus, Cetartiodactyla is supported as a monophyletic group." First of all, Pakicetus seem to fall under Archaeoceti, and thus are not a separate branch. Secondly, this discusses two (alleged) cetacean branches, but no hippo branches, and thus does not support the "however" that begins the section or the conclusion in the last sentence. Rlendog (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. The "other branch" is the hippo branch. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)