Talk:Cimolesta

I see Cimolesta is becoming a catch-all category almost as bad as the old Insectivora. Granted, all these early mammals were more similar to one another than different, but putting the Pholidota into this order is really stretching it. What are the characters shared by pangolins and cimolestans? 153.2.246.32 (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a very good question, unfortunately it has not been answered by anyone. I am a regular editor of the Cimolesta article, but I don't have the knowledge to give a sadisfactionary answer to this question. I think this article is realy in need of an expert, a true expert on these issues.


 * The main questions are: are the Cimolesta (as an order) polyphyletic? And if they are, what is the true relationships of the wide variaty of Cimolesta suborders (as appearing in the article)?


 * As the answers of the above questions may be theoretical (at best), perhaps the following questions are of more importance:


 * 1. What are the morphological characters shared by the differend groups of Cimolestans (like Pantodonta, Pantolesta, Tillodonta, Cimolesta, etc.)
 * 2. In what ways can the morphology of pangolins be compared to that of the above groups?
 * 3. In what ways are the shared characteristics and differences between pangolins and Cimolestans a support for the inclusion (or exclusion) of Pholidota (pangolins) within the Cimolesta ?


 * Is there an expert on these matters, wandering somewhere in the virtual library of Wikipedia? DaMatriX (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Larval young?
Since although they were eutherians, but not placentals, is it safe to say that Cimolestans gave birth to larval young like marsupials do?