Talk:Edented Sulawesi rat

Definition of the word "Rodent" needs revision as a result of this discovery?
To all Paucidentomys vermidax talk page readers: please if you would follow this thread Talk:Rodent and comment there as you would. Has discovery of a rodent with this dentation call into question the basic definition of the word "Rodent" to any extent? Chrisrus (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (I have posted the following on the Talk:Rodent page) I was asking myself similar questions when I read the original article on Paucidentomys vermidax which is why I checked the original source rather than trusting a daily newspaper. I am certainly not a taxonomist, but I have a good friend who is. Talking with him last night, he says there are plenty of similar examples where there is a single species within an order that through divergent evolution, have become so specialised in their adaptations that they appear to contradict the 'characteristics' of the order. So, I believe we are OK to call Paucidentomys vermidax a rodent. In fact, the authors of the scientific paper describing it call it a rodent so this is verifiable in the keeping of Wikipedia articles. However, I would agree that the wording of the article Rodent needs to be looked at and tweaks made regarding dentition.DrChrissy (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Relevance?
The article says; "Paucidentomys vermidax is larger than Melasmothrix naso, Sommeromys macrorhinos and Tateomys macrocercus, similar in size to Tateomys rhinogradoides, smaller than Rhynchomys soricoides and substantially smaller than species of Echiothrix." I can't see any reason why this info should be included. 84.210.13.140 (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Four teeth or two??
It says they have "four teeth" but then it says:

"Its dental formula is 1.0.0.0 1.0.0.0"

That's two teeth.

Something's got to give. Chrisrus (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)