Talk:Artiodactyl

te

Bovidae?
Are sheep and goats really bovidae? Vicki Rosenzweig, Saturday, June 8, 2002

Yes they are, but they are not bovinae. Bovidae include all the ruminants with conical or heliconical horns, goats, sheep, and antelopes as well as cows. The families of ruminants are distinguished by their horns: chevrotains have none, pronghorns have pronged horns, giraffes have stubs, deer have antlers, and bovids have heliconical horns. -phma

Kosher?
Does anyone else think the info on what is/isn't considered Kosher doesn't belong on this page? -- stewacide 05:36, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have the stuff on food taboos in here - the distinctions between what may and may not be eaten by the different religions do actually follow the taxonomy, and this is the page on which the taxonomy is being presented. The existing material on food permissions does need a bit of a rewrite, though, I'll get round to it sooner or later if no-one else does. seglea 07:11, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * But add quotation marks and/ or mention "hallal" as well at least! Wikipedia, pretending to be neutral, cannot allow such a statement which could all to easily be explained as Jewish-coloured (or coloured by any culture, to be sure), can it?--Caesarion 09:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, now that I read the line better I see that the first sentence is relativated by the following --Caesarion 10:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)again.

Whales?
The article lists hippos as closest to pigs, but according to Richard Dawkins in The Ancestor's Tale the closest relatives to the hippos are the whales (he refers to post-2000 molecular research). Given that this hypothesis is quite young I could understand it not being the accepted relationship, but does anyone know enough about it to mention it? I ask this here instead of at hippopotamus because this is where the family tree is presented. &mdash;Rory &#9786; 22:30, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, and by now fossil evidence that supports this theory has been found, too. (Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan. Philip D. Gingerich, Munir ul Haq, Iyad S. Zalmout, Intizar Hussain Khan, and M. Sadiq Malkan. Science 21 September 2001; 293: 2239-2242.) Both DNA and fossils pointing in one direction -- seems like it's time to update the taxonomy. --Chl 16:30, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You seem more knowledgeable than I about the topic. Could you add that information to the relevant articles? &mdash;Rory &#9786; 17:03, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Even if evolution is true, whales shouldn't be classed as this as they themselves don't have toes. Taxonomy of a certain animal is supposed to describe that animal, not its hypothetical ancestors. Primal Groudon (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User - Primal Groudon. According to the UNGULATES Wiki page "As a descriptive term, "ungulate" normally excludes cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises), as they do not possess most of the typical morphological characteristics of ungulates, but recent discoveries indicate that they are descended from early artiodactyls.[4] Ungulates are typically herbivorous (though some modern species are omnivorous, such as pigs, and some prehistoric ones were carnivorous, like mesonychians), and many employ specialized gut-bacteria to allow them to digest cellulose." (Mab157 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC))
 * That's not how any of this works. Even-toed ungulates was just the common name for Artiodactyla because all members had an even number of toes. Cetacea was then subsumed under Artiodactyla, so they are not "ungulates" in the strict sense but they are in fact artiodactylans and are discussed on this page  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a section needs to be added adressing pro and con arguments with classifying cetacea under the same order as other hooved animals. I'm sure there are articles available explaining why it makes sense to classify cetacea together with hooved animal in spite of them sharing no obvious anatomical features. Even the proposed ancestor of whales Ambulocetus has no obvious anatomical resemblance with hooved animals. Rigognos Molinarios (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Demise of the Artiodactyla
Since the Artiodactyla as traditionally composed is paraphyletic, because it excludes cetaceans, future authors will be inclined to throw the Artiodactyla into the "laundry basket" by using the name Cetartiodactyla to include land-living artiodactyls and cetaceans. The phrase "laundry basket" means a bunch of paraphyletic or polyphyletic assemblages.


 * The other option is to recognize Artiodactyla as the name of the clade instead of Cetartiodactyla, since the Cetacea is just one (successful) group that arose within that clade of artiodactyls. There are precedents for both approaches. Cephal-odd 19:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

†Agriochoeridae
The family †Agriochoeridae is still unlisted, and therefore in red, but the Genus †Agriochoerus does have an entry. Is there a way to place †Agriochoeridae in blue, but redirect to †Agriochoerus? That way a user can go directly to the article without having to "google it" like I had to do. User:retrograde62 22:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.161.147 (talk)

Economic importance?
The article's introductory paragraph concludes with the phrase "...including many that are of great economic importance to humans." However, information to support this statement is absent from the article. Is this appropriate? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 13:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Cetartiodactyla
Should Cetartiodactyla officially be put in as the superorder of Artiodactyla and Cetacea? Eli Falk 18:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, let's wait a couple of years. In any case, let's leave anything as controversial as this out of the taxoboxes for now... Fedor 09:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * EDIT: 1 yr later, I think that Cetartiodactyla should have whales and hippos and be placed in the Artiodactyls. -Walkingwith08 (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ungulate template
I removed the ungulate template for a couple reasons. 1) If we are going to use it, it has to actually be a template. A template is updated from one central page in the template space, and then changes occur on all the pages.  If this template was on all the pages, and someone wanted to update it, they'd have to make the same edit dozens of times.  2) Classifying cetaceans as "ungulates" is not an uncontroversial assumption. While most agree that they are descended from ungulates, it's not accurate to call them ungulates -- whales, after all, are not hooved. If we want to include cetaceans I think the template has to be for the superorder certartiodactyls. Remember ungulates is not an exclusively taxonomic term. --JayHenry 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes happening today
I'm going to be doing quite a bit of editing of this page today, so it'll probably go through various stages of readiness. Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

 * The international trade in beef for 2000 was over $30 billion and represented only 23 percent of world beef production.

Does this assert that 77% of world beef production is not traded internationally, suggesting that the total beef market is somewhere in the neighborhood of $130B?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mating and reproduction�Perissodactyl males are just like most anlmals they fight for the attention of the females.� When a male finds a female he will taste her urine to see if she is in (estrus)heat.�The female can also signal the male if she is in estrus.� Perissodactyls most often only have one baby at a time, rarely, the females ever  twins.�The pregnancy  is very long, from about 11 months in horses to 16 months for rhinoceroses.� The calf or foal is able to stand within moments of birth, but is very dependent on its mother.� The young stays with its mother even after it is independent, usually until it is chased off by the mother upon the birth of a new foal or calf. � In horses, the foal will enter into the herd proper, later, young stallions are often chased off and join bachelor herds.� With rhinos and tapirs, the newly weaned calf wanders away to search for new feeding grounds� —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.129.151 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just why is Artiodactyla paraphyletic?
The matter is unclear, and I cannot be the only reader confused. The claim is that the exclusion of whales renders the group paraphyletic. The labels in the cladogram File:Artiodactylamorpha.png (included in the article) don't include either Artiodactyla or whales, but there are two pictures of whales and a shaded area labeled "Artiodactylamorpha". Generally, and perhaps in this case, tacking the -morpha suffix onto a taxon name produces the name of a more inclusive taxon.

It is evident from the cladogram that Artiodactylamorpha+Perissodactyla+Hydracotherium is a monophyletic group. Perhaps it has a real name; I shall call it the APH group. Since it is the clade originating with the last common ancestor of the Artiodactylamorpha, the latter is paraphyletic if and only if it lacks some subclade of the APH group. It does lack the Perissodactyla+Hydracotherium subclade and of course subsubclades like the Rinocerotidae, so it is indeed paraphyletic. The whales, though (at least those depicted) have nothing to do with the matter.

Of course, the claim is that Artiodactyla is paraphyletic, not that Artiodactylamorpha is. If Artiodactyla is indeed included in Artiodactylamorpha, however, then the last common ancestor of the Artiodactyla is included as well, and—going by the cladogram—so is every animal descended from that ancestor. The paraphyly of Artiodactyla would need to be a consequence of the exclusion of some of these artiodactylamorph descendants. It appears from the cladogram, though, that none of these are whales.

The exclusion of whales could render Artiodactyla paraphyletic, then, only if the group is more inclusive than Artiodactylamorpha. Is it the entire set of animals shown in File:Artiodactylamorpha.png, including dogs and cats, minus some group that includes the whales?

Peter M. Brown (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's actually somewhat simpler than that: the cladogram does not show the current consensus on artiodactyl-cetacean relationships. Instead, it represents the findings of one paper, published in 2009, that challenged that consensus, and disputing that artiodactyla is paraphyletic. It was a sound enough paper at the time, but it has since been contradicted by more research, showing the cladogram in the article to be incorrect (see, for example, this 2011 paper).


 * So, the latest research (to the best of my knowledge) shows that the article text is correct, and the cladogram is wrong. I don't blame you for being confused, and, in my view, the image should simply be removed from the article - at best, it contradicts the text. Anaxial (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The current text reads: "The group excludes whales (Cetacea), although DNA sequence data indicate they share a common ancestor, making the group paraphyletic." This is still problematic: sharing a common ancestor with whales does not per se make the group paraphyletic. For example, Hominidae shares a common ancestor with Cetacea, but Hominidae is monophyletic. This should be clarified. 151.46.255.132 (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And if whales are excluded they should be thrown out of the picture in the taxobox--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The answer is it is and it isn't. The use of Artiodactyla is problematic because it is used two ways. Traditionally, Artiodactyla is the mammalian order containing even-toed ungulates and excludes the cetaceans, which were assigned to another traditional mammalian order. The discovery that cetaceans evolved from within the artiodactyls raised a problem for using the traditional orders, with two approaches.
 * (1) Continue to use Artiodactyla in the traditional sense for even toed ungulates, excluding cetaceans, which makes Artiodactlya paraphyletic. This approach led to the introduction of the new name Cetartiodactyla for the monophyletic clade containing the artiodactyls and cetaceans. This seems to be the general approach taken in most studies, especially molecular stadies.
 * (2) Redefine Artiodactyla to fit current findings, which means Cetacea becomes a clade within a monophyletic Artiodactyla. The Spaulding et al (2009) paper that the figure come from took this approach. The figure uses Artiodactylamorpha because it includes the extinct stem groups as well as the crown group. They proposes a complete set of new and revised names, including abolishing Whippomorpha (not used in the same sense as most -morpha groupings) and replacing it with Cetancodonta (including all living hippos and cetaceans in crown group) and Cetancodontamorpha (also including extinct stem groups).
 * My understanding is that most studies continue to use option 1, using Cetartiodactyla and Whippomorpha, regardless of the merits of the Spaulding et al (2009) proposal (see section in their introduction). The reality is that both approaches are used and the article needs to reflect this somehow, while keeping a consistent approach. Jts1882 (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"double-pulley structure"
Since the lead section mentions "double-pulley structure", it would be useful if this was explained somewhere in the article, or if there was a link to an article that explained it. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Cladogram
It is not obvious what the numbers on the cladogram mean. Thanks.

The Letter J (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Horses and related
Also, are horses even-toed? The article says they're odd-toed, but the cladogram lists equus. The Letter J (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Cetartiodactyla
The Cetartiodactyla link at the bottom of the second paragraph leads right back to the Artiodactyla. Seems rather pointless! Perhaps the page should be changed to Cetartiodactyla as it's more scientifically correct, with artiodactyla redirecting to Cetartiodactyla rather than the other way round, and even toed ungulate leading to a page about the historical wastebasket group rather than the scientific information, similar to the pages for cetacea and whales (see the nomination for deletion for the 'whale' article.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.73.39 (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammar
The grammar in some parts of this article is terrible probably the stuff that's been translated from German it needs some cleaning up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.66.17 (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Serious problems with the layout and wording after inclusion of material from the German version
@User:Dunkleosteus77. Was this a direct machine-translation from the German article? It reads very awkwardly. And from what I can see some sourced information have been removed. If the intent was merely to expand a section of the article, it should have been inserted to the relevant sections with the rest being retained as is.

There are two subsections on Taxonomy currently, for example. The list of taxa also shouldn't be the first subsection without introductory/explanatory text. Compare with the way this was handled in the old layout.

There are also numerous weirdly phrased sentences and errors in terminology. Here's a random sampling:
 * The artiodactyls thus form a form a taxon, ie., a group which, although not a closed community of descent, is characterized by common features.
 * The porcine, which consist of the Real or Old World pigs and peccaries or peccaries. 
 * The hippos, which belong to its own submission...
 * Until it was caught by User:Jonesey95, Mammalia was presented as an order, not a class. Which might be another artifact of bad translation.
 * Artiodactyls have similar characteristics between each other, in particular the construction of the limbs, which are highly customized to aquatic life.  <- ???
 * The molars of porcine provide a few bumps.
 * Originally two rows of were probably teat from the armpit to the groin area available
 * These animals are marked bottom dwellers
 * From then on, they hit, due to the aquatic life, their own lineage.

etc. There are tons more.

I'm sorry, but I think it's incomprehensible at this state. If you can identify what sections you are trying to add, I think it's best to start over and revert to this version. You can then re-add the sections one by one, avoiding displacing the preexisting information and making sure the English is up to standards.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  05:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a bad idea as it would mean only people who understand german can help out. We can improve the current version without having to refer back to the German version. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION ("Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing"). It has been in this state for around a month, and it's a high-importance article. The sourced text in the original version should not have been overwritten for example. Especially since the replacement, from what I can see, are sometimes completely unsourced or actually less informative than the original (the lead for instance). A lot of the text is also already insurmountably incomprehensible, especially the technical parts. And I doubt those can be fixed by mere copyediting. A good example is this: "The molars of porcine provide a few bumps. In contrast, the camels and ruminants have bumps that are crescent-shaped melting strips reshuffled (selenodont)." I vaguely get that it refers to dental morphology (bunodonts vs. selenodonts, I guess), but like the majority of the existing sentences, it needs clarification. And since it is unsourced, you do still need to refer to the original German version anyway. There are other even more mysterious sentences that I can't even begin to make sense of (e.g.  They're classified within the ruminants particularly ethnic piglets missing the omasum, otherwise show all kinds of subordination to the same building and the same digestive way.) It's unworkable at this state.  --  O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  21:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It's funny how you mentioned the lead, because I'm pretty sure I left the original one up (did I? I'm forgetting) Sorry about the copy/edit issues, it seems I've missed a lot of grammatical errors. I was also kind of hoping for some help on the copy/editing after I added it, but I didn't realise there were so many errors. I have no idea how I missed the fact that there were two Taxonomy sections (and why no one in over a month fixed that). Anyways, I'm really sorry. Dunkleosteus77   (push to talk)  23:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. The lead is also translated from German. Normally I'd help fix them too (that was my original intent when I looked it over). But after taking a look at the state it is in now, imo, it's kinda hopeless. There are simply too many errors. I really think it'd be much better to start over, and introduce the new content slowly over time. That way any translation issues can be fixed more easily and in context (though I don't know how useful we are at that as well - none of the recent contributors to the article seem to speak German, much less scientific German).-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  00:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, some words, like species name, don't have an English translation, per-say, so the easiest thing to do would be to go to the German Wikipedia and search that particular world (like "Unpaarzeher", odd toed ungulates). So, is the article going to be reverted to the version before the translation? Dunkleosteus77   (push to talk)  02:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I recommend doing so. Since it's your edit, it'd be best if you do it. You can maybe keep a copy of the current version in a userpage somewhere and then add the info again one by one to the proper sections. Making sure it's been copyedited correctly before doing so. This is a pretty high-importance article and gets around 400 views a day. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  06:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've copy\pasted it into my sandbox, and I'll sort it out from there. When I think I'm done, I'll add a draft here on the talk page to make sure the latter of the copy/edit problems are solved. Dunkleosteus77   (push to talk)  13:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've reverted it to the previous version. Good luck with the reintegration. Cheers. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  22:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm finished with the copy/editing problems of the Taxonomy section. Your input is appreciated. Dunkleosteus77  (push to talk)  00:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've revised the Taxonomy section, but before I continue, could you check to make sure I'm doing it right? Dunkleosteus77   (push to talk)  21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Numerous sentences still don't make sense. Too many to point out individually. You should go through the sentences one by one, rather than scanning for errors. Try avoiding following German grammar (in particular, don't follow the German capitalization rules, follow WP:NCFAUNA). Reword sentences when necessary so they can be understood, which is the most important consideration here. For example:


 * Differences in the construction of the stomach could imagine that the ability of rumination has developed independently between camels and ruminants; therefore, the camels are not actually counted as ruminants.


 * Could be rewritten as:


 * Differences in stomach construction indicated that rumination evolved independently between tylopods and ruminants; therefore tylopods were excluded from Ruminantia.


 * It depends on the original German of course. The point being, to avoid translating literally and instead translate the concept being put forward.


 * Some terminology errors include:


 * "Porcine" is an adjective, not a noun, and a very uncommon one at that. In most cases where it is used, just use the formal name for the taxon - Suina, and "pigs and allies" for the rest.
 * "Selenodontem" is not English. The word is selenodont, characterized by crescent-shaped cusps. Not "crescent-shaped melting strips".
 * "Hippos" similarly might be better referred to by the more formal "hippopotamuses", etc.
 * When a term seems unfamiliar, you should refer to existing Wikipedia articles and follow the terminology and/or descriptions that they use.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  23:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Just want to say that I hope you don't misunderstand any of this. :P I do appreciate what you're doing and acknowledge that it's very difficult to translate scientific articles. It's just that we do need to ensure that they are at least comprehensible to the readers before putting them up on the articles.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  00:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've revised it again, with the comments noted (and a lot more grammatical errors fixed). Check it out at my sandbox. Many thanks. Dunkleosteus77  (push to talk)  02:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Due to the lack of comments in around a month's time, I'll repost the German version again (but I've re-added the better and more detailed parts of the English version, e.g, the Diet and feeding section into the Digestive system section). If the copyediting problems are still very high and unintelligible (like the sentences above), do not hesitate to take it down, but if there are just minor copyediting problems left, just fix it. I'm pretty sure there's still technical jargon (like astragalus) and feel free to change those if you feel it should be. Thank you, and again, if copyediting problems are still still present, do not hesitate to take it down.

Haircut
I've just done a severe trim of the lead. There should have not been stuff in there which wasn't summary of similar in the body, so I don't believe anything is lost - and it's certainly more readable. Snori (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Horns and antlers
Please check the accuracy of my change. The previous "end arms" version was very odd, but I am no specialist, so may have misinterpreted Pecora. Snori (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Taxoboxes for even-toed ungulates and whales
I think we need a single approach to handle all taxoboxes of even-toed ungulates and whales. Looking at a few articles, I've seen the following options:
 * Refer to order Artiodactyla as including a suborder Whippomorpha, which in turn has an infraorder Cetacea (whales) - for example, Baleen whale
 * Refer to order Artiodactyla as a paraphyletic group, which excludes whales; Cetacea is an other order - for example, Rorqual
 * Use the order name Cetartiodactyla; Cetacea is an unranked clade in this group - for example, Blue whale

I think we should move towards a more consistent standard for all articles referring to animals from this clade. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should try to be consistent. If either Whippomorpha or Cetartiodactyla has become generally accepted within the scientific community we should use that.  If not we should use Artiodactyla as a paraphyletic group. Rlendog (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We should only use natural groups in the taxoboxes. Otherwise we're misleading the reader into believing an invalid group is valid. FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We use paraphyletic groups elsewhere (e.g Reptilia), we just mark them as paraphyletic (see Template:Automatic taxobox/doc/advanced). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are newer, monophyletic definitions of Reptilia, as our article states. So the taxobox disclaimer there seems to be inadequte... We should use newer, monophyletic definitions where possible. FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Artiodactyla and Cetartiodactyla are synonyms, so Order Cetartiodactyla, Suborder Whippomorpha, Infraorder Cetacea is a valid option  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Distribution and Habitat
The article appears to state that there are no even-toed ungulates native to North America, which is so absurd I feel I must be missing something. Am I missing something? Nstgtr42 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It says (and Bison clearly contradicts this) that there are currently no even-toed ungulates native to North America, although there used to be. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Classification should include cetaceans
An unregistered user reversed my edits to include the cetaceans in the classification section. The article does include a discussion about Cetaceans so the classification section should as well. I do not understand the editor's point so it might just be vandalism. --Akrasia25 (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is about the order Artiodactyla and that includes cetaceans. The taxobox has included them since the end of 2010, included within Cetruminantia and before that linked to the classification section where they were listed. For an unregistered user to delete a decade content based on some concept of what the article is "truly" about borders on vandalism, but if this accusation is unfounded they can make their point here.
 * It does raise the question about the Wikipedia policy of using common names for article titles that would be better named after the taxon, but that is another matter.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It certainly should contain a listing for Cetacea, but no need to go into Cetacea's internal structure. Apart from the question of Cetacea's placement in the Artiodactyla evolutionary tree, the article is about Artiodactyla excluding Cetacea. I would say the same thing about listing Aves in the reptile article - mention it as a group in evolutionary trees, but not its internal subdivisions. 37.26.148.177 (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The “ † “ symbol
The “ † “ symbol appears 34 times in this article without any explanation or reference. If it is means something, let’s state clearly what the meaning is; otherwise, I think it should be stripped out. , Poihths (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's shorthand for "extinct," as in the taxon it's in front of is extinct.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it worth replacing them all with extinct so there is a tooltip, i.e. . The first one could (should?) be wikilinked.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Elk
The animal pictured in the taxobox is a rocky mountain elk, pictured mid-bugle, but the image hyperlinked to the Red Dear page. I edited it to be associated with the correct animal. Hope this isn't a problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingAelle (talk • contribs) 21:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Information on weight in Wikipedia ? (Table yes/no)
Here's the table I made January 31 2023 for Artiodactyla 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 not given in 66 species of the first table (Ruminantia, Suina and Tylopoda) and 24 species in the 2nd table (Whippomorpha) :

Requested move 24 July 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus proposed name is more adequate for a taxon that includes cetaceans. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Even-toed ungulate → Artiodactyl – This is probably going to be very controversial, but hear me out: While "even-toed"/"even-hoofed" animals/ungulates are technically the more popular term according to google scholar, the terms themselves tend to exclude cetaceans, as the articles within the search results often specify "cetaceans/whales and dolphins" + "even-toed ungulates," suggesting that the term isn't so inclusive for cetaceans as opposed to all members of artiodactyls. After all, cetaceans don't have toes/hooves. Yes, I know that the earliest cetacean ancestors walked on land, but it still doesn't change that they no longer have "toes" or "hooves." The term "artiodactyls" is used a lot too and can technically be more "inclusive" for cetaceans instead of just terrestrial artiodactyls. I'm aware that the etymology of "Artiodactyla" means "even toed," but taxonomic names can persist even if the ideas behind them are outdated. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. C LYDE  TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I can support this. However, this would be contrary to the policy WP:COMMONNAME. Also, I can see an argument that Even-Toed Ungulates and Artiodactyla may no longer mean the same thing. If so, would that necessitate two separate articles, one for each? Yuck. If we are all in agreement that Artiodactyla includes Even-Toed Ungulates plus Cetaceans, I'm fine with a rename to Artiodactyla, and an appropriate explanation, as that is how this article currently handles the topic anyways. Cougroyalty (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say WP:COMMONNAME can be used to support the change. Even-toed ungulate is not the common name for cetaceans, which are not ungulates, even if they have ungulate ancestors. However, the article is not really about the order as outside the taxonomy sections the cetaceans are ignored. For instance, look at the sections on limbs or teeth, which don't cover cetacean features. The threats section gives a number for threatened species which excludes the cetaceans but doesn't say so. I'd support the move if the article was modified to cover the whole order, but unless most of the sections are changed to cover cetaceans it might be better to leave the article at this title. Something should be done about the schizophrenic nature of the article, where different sections cover different topics (the order in the taxonomy and phylogeny section, even-toed ungulates in the rest of the sections). —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 06:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is problematic since this article is about the entire Artiodactyla order, and mostly leaving out an entire infraorder from discussion causes problems to understanding traits that unite the entire order. It's more of an "article lacking sufficiantly updated and detailed information" issue than a "naming" issue. I just recently put up a "missing information" template on this article to reflect this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I've noticed that you are tidying up some of the extinct ungulate taxa. You recently removed Gelocidae from the listing in Pecora, but the Gelocidae article still places it in Pecora. What would be the correct placement? —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Gelocidae is... a very difficult family for paleontologists to interpret. In the few times that it is researched, some say that it belongs within the Tragulina, some say that it's within Pecora, and some others say that it's some predecessor to the Pecora. I placed it tentatively in the Tragulina in this page and could change that in its own page, but truth is, there's not enough of a consistently solid diagnosis for it. All we know is that the classified genera are ruminants, but after that is where things get shaky. It is an infamous wastebasket taxon known for paleontologists lumping anything that can be diagnosed dentally as having traits of both the Tragulina and Pecora. It's... a mess. Honestly, I'm surprised this family got an article first and not most of the other Tragulina families that currently are more solidly defined. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright, it's clearly been more than 7 days since the opening of this discussion, can we get any final consensus? PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per common and more understandable name and consistency with Odd-toed ungulate. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I stated earlier, I understand that it’s a common name, but the issue is that it’s inaccurate by informal definition to call all artiodactyl members including cetaceans “even-toed ungulates” for a multitude of reasons. What I can see though is an argument for two split pages similar to how “Elephantidae” and “Elephant” work, although probably not everyone would like that. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Mammals has been notified of this discussion. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support since it's a misnomer, as previously mentioned with cetaceans. I'd also support moving Odd-toed ungulate to Perissodactyla not just for consistency but because it's also a misnomer. Ignoring the fossil record, tapirs have 4 hooves on their front limbs. Dunkleosteus77  (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as per my comments above, but coming off the fence. The scope of the article is the whole order Artiodactyla, which includes even-toed ungulates and cetaceans. However, many sections don't cover the full scope so I'd be happier with the move if cetaceans were discussed in the limbs and teeth sections. Perhaps the move would encourage work there once the scope of the article was clearer. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 05:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)