Talk:Afrosoricida

Untitled
The classification provided here is completely different from the classification at Mammal. john k 16:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I edited this page because of the weak suppotr for Afrotheria. (Note:unsigned)
 * I have reverted those changes. The support for Afrotheria has been very good in a number of independent genetic studies.  Admittedly, the page could use some more balance from the morphology-centric viewpoint, but merely deleting the well-supported genetic taxonomic hypothesis in exchange for the traditional viewpoint is definitely counterproductive.  --Aranae 04:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I didnt delete the references to the molecular studies, but I edited it because I felt it misrepresents the support for Afrotheria. Although the Afrotheria is often recovered in such studies, the bootstrap support is actually very low, so the clade is not robust - besides that the only morphological character so far cited in support of Afrotheria, was "movable snout". However the snout anatomy is inconsistent within Afrotheria, and it seperates Afrosoricida from the African ungulates.

Information on weight in Wikipedia ? (Table yes/no)
Here's the table I made January 30 2023 for Afrosoricida species listed in Wikipedia (when searching from List of mammal genera, the linked genus pages from this page and the species page listed in the genus page).

Information on weight is given for 14/55 species / Information on weight is not given in 41/55 species :

move to Tenrecoidea and changes to better reflect phylogeny
I've updated the page to better reflect recent phylogenetic analyses (e.g., Everson et al. 2016 in regards to Microgale phylogeny and position of Oryzorictes as closer to Microgale than Geogale). I'd also recommend recognizing McDowell (1958) who had named this clade 40 years prior to "Afrosoricida", and I've included text and citations of the primary literature making the case for this particular nomenclature. I've also quoted from the online version of MSW 2005 (https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp?s=y&id=11100001), i.e., Bronner & Jenkins 2005 chapter in that book, to give further context to their view on the appropriate name for the tenrec-golden mole clade. I should also disclose that I'm a biologist who's contributed to the primary literature and (unsurprisingly) am referring to some of my own (cited & peer reviewed) conclusions & opinions. Thanks to everyone here for helping to make these wonderful animals more accessible to the public. Sincere regards, Robert Asher. Asherobert (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that quote alone misrepresents the conclusions in that MSW3 section. The next paragraph includes:

"Tenrecoidea, however, was first used by Simpson (1931) as a corrected superfamily name for Cententoidea, and comprised various 'zalambdodont' taxa (Solenodontidae, Potamogalidae, Tenrecidae and extinct Palaeoryctidae and Apternodontidae) but not chrysochlorids (assigned to a separate superfamily Chrysochloridea). McDowell’s (1958) restriction of Tenrecoidea to include only golden moles and tenrecs (thus identical in composition to Afrosoricida) implied a fundamentally different grouping concept to that of Simpson (1931); usage of this name arguably violates Simpson’s (1945:33) guidelines (29-30) for reasonable emendation, and also his recommendation that superfamily names (ending in –oidea) should be avoided. Priority, which Simpson (1945:33) advocated as a deciding criterion only '..when other things are about equal.' is thus insufficient to justify acceptance of McDowell’s (1958) revised 'Tenrecoidea'."
 * So my reading is that MSW rejects the priority argument for Tenrecoidea following Simpson's principles, i.e. priority rejected if the "group concept now to be recognized is essentially different" (principle 29A, p33), and accepts Afrosoricida as the best of several poor alternatives. Asher & Helgen (2010) came to different conclusions on the best name, arguing for priority, based on a different interpretation of Simpson's principles.
 * As it stands, it seems to me that Afrosoricida is still widely accepted, although both Afrosoricida and Tenrecoidea are both used in the scientific literature. However, the sources the Wikipedia mammal project has followed for article titles (MSW3 and more recently the IUCN and ASM-MDD) all use Afrosoricida. We would need new independent secondary sources to support the move of the article to Tenrecoidea, although both names should be discussed in the text. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur and will move the page back to Afrosoricida. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Afrosoricida Translation
“African shrew-like things” probably conveys the sense of Afrosoricida better than “looking like African shrews.” N. Pharris (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)