From Wikispecies
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Kempm in topic Mammalia classification
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Incomplete Taxonavigation. --andy85719

Why? Ucucha 17:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply



I find no way to reach Placentalia from Mammalia. Is Placentalia being eliminated from wikispecies? At wikipedia Placentalia is described as being very similar to Eutheria.

At the Tree of Life it says Eutheria contains all of the orders such as Primates. According to wikispecies, Eutheria is an infraclass that contains:

At wikipedia, Euarchontoglires is described as a super-order containing orders such as Primates. At Eutheria, Xenarthra, Laurasiatheria, Afrotheria, and Euarchontoglires are listed as orders; it seems like this is WRONG.

At wikispecies, an order such as Primates only points to Theria (Eutheria and Euarchontoglires are not shown as higher grouping). The wikipedia article on Theria says it is a subclass.

The path from Mammalia to Primates would seem to be:

Mammalia --> Theria --> Eutheria --> Euarchontoglires --> Primates

Mammalia (class) --> Theria (subclass) --> Eutheria (infraclass) --> Euarchontoglires (super-order) --> Primates (order)

but this seems complex and I'm not sure if it fits with wikipedia, but I'm going to try to stick with it. I'm going to try to add some information for Euarchontoglires; this will at least allow for a top-down connection from Mammalia to Primates. --JWSchmidt 15:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I changed Eutheria so as to show Xenarthra, Laurasiatheria, Afrotheria, and Euarchontoglires as super-orders. I guess Eutheria can be called a subclass. --JWSchmidt 17:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

There are different classifications, and there are different systems within those classifications. The following seems reasonable:

Morphological classification:

Molecular classification:

Some people consider Eutheria or Placentalia and Metatheria or Marsupialia as subclasses, but I've never encountered such a classification in scientific papers. Ucucha 06:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Searching on PubMed, I do find articles that call Eutheria an infraclass of Theria, and only two that say "subclass":
The abstract of an article called "Topography, structure and function of the patella and the patelloid in marsupials" says: the subclass of placental mammals (Eutheria)
The abstract of an article called "Molecular evidence for the inclusion of cetaceans within the order Artiodactyla" says " artiodactyls constitute a natural clade within subclass Eutheria. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
See also en:Mammal classification (I'm sorry, I forgot saying it before). Ucucha 18:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I made a link to Placentalia on the Eutheria page. I probably did not do this in the correct way, but it now provides a way to reach Placentalia. --JWSchmidt 01:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

We seem to have both Eutheria and Placentalia listed as infraclasses of Theria - surely, whichever it is, it can't be both? I note that most templates for placental orders, families, etc. refer to Placentalia alone, but if we need Eutheria as a group, then surely Placentalia is a subgroup of that, not an entirely seperate taxon as implied at present? Anaxial 17:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

for wikipedia



  • Eutheria is nearly synonymous with Placentalia, containing the placental mammals and the nearest ancestors of placental mammals (which are known only from the fossil record).
  • Metatheria is nearly synonymous with Marsupialia, though it is slightly wider. It also contains the nearest ancestors of marsupial mammals.

Mammalia classification


System we had before november 23rd:

Classis: Mammalia

Subclasses: Prototheria - Theria

Subclassis: Prototheria

Ordo: Monotremata

Subclassis: Theria

Infraclasses: Metatheria - Placentalia Or the
Alternative: Metatheria - Eutheria

1. Changing the top Metatheria link into Marsupialia to give the full alternative (Marsupialia/Placentalia versus Metatheria/Eutheria)

2. I will keep the names Marsupialia and Placentalia in the trees for lower taxons. (Following MSW 3, that speaks of Marsupialia and Placentalia)

3. Inserting in Marsupialia, Superordo: Ameridelphia (leading to Didelphimorphia and Paucituberculata) and an Unassigned leading to the other marsupial orders. --Kempm 18:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that's good (I'd personally prefer Metatheria-Eutheria, but it's better if we follow MSW 3). Only one thing: I think you should get rid of Ameridelphia. It is improbable that it's monophyletic and even if it is, I don't know of any classification that uses it. Ucucha (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oops a little too late, but can be easily deleted now. Perhaps it's a little ambitious to include Ameridelphia indeed, I made it so that the unassigned link will not become visible in the trees. Let's keep the discussion vibrant, and if more object to including Ameridelphia I'll be happy to delete it. For now following: include as many as you can :) --Kempm 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
In fact, I think it'd be better if you provide sources which favour your Ameridelphia-Unassigned scheme. The other superorder (or in fact magnorder) of McKenna & Bell, Australidelphia, is in fact much more supported. It seems like most molecular classifications favor (Didelphimorphia(Paucituberculata,Australidelphia)) (although you'll probably find any obscure arrangement somewhere). If you really feel that you need something to divide the marsupials, you may follow McKenna & Bell (copied in nl:Zoogdieren/Nieuw#Indeling), but I believe there isn't much to be gained in adding some obscure superorders. Ucucha (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Point taken. My 'source' is of course MSW 3. To order Didelphimorphia is written in the comments section: "Traditionally included in Marsupialia; included in Ameridelphia (see Aplin and Archer, 1987; Marshall et al., 1990; and Szalay, 1982); but not Microbiotheriidae (Marshall et al., 1990; contra Reig et al., 1987)." I try not to think for myself, but I see that I made a mistake here. I concluded by the information stated that Ameridelphia was widely accepted. You convinced me to keep it out of the tree. Also it's evident I need to listen to expert advise in the future even more. Thx Ucucha. --Kempm 08:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply