Talk:Maelestes

Maelestes is no proof or disproof of anything
"The discovery and analysis of this species suggests that true placental mammals appeared during the time the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, not earlier in the Cretaceous as previously thought."

Well, this may be the opinion of the authors of the referenced article, but that's no reason to present it as a fact in the Wikipedia article! I see no reason why the discovery of Maelestes is a proof or disproof of anything. The molecular view of mammal evolution states that many modern orders of Eutherians has their origin earlier in the Cretaceous, and not after the K/T boundary. Now, if Maelestes is a Cimolestan, it means that:

1. The split between Cimolesta and Perissodactyla must have been earlier in the Cretaceous. 2. The split between these groups and the Cetartiodactyla must have been even earlier. 3. The origin of all of these groups, all from the Condylarthra, must have been even earlier. 4. The split between the Eulipotyphla and the other Laurasiatheria must have been even earlier. 5. The split between the Laurasiatheria and the other Eutherians (such as Euarchontoglires) must have been even earlier.

So I don't see why Maelestes provides a problem at all for the alternative view of mammal evolution, which points to a very early origin of many modern orders of mammals. DaMatriX (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)