Talk:Palaeomerycidae

Amphitragulus
On checking Paleobiology database, I note that the date range is shown as 55.8 - 4.9 Ma (I presume the database has been amended since this bit was put in the article). I have included the 3 other places where the Database says that specimens have been found.Glevum (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Barbouromeryx
Seeing no obvious reason for the specific mention of this genus, I delved into the paleobiology database to discover that it is, so far, the earliest known north american genus - if you are not going to highlight this point, then what is the point of mentioning the genus in the first place? I also note that the database says the Nebraska specimens cover the range from 24.8 - 15.97 Mya. I presume the 23.03 Mya comes from the cited source (which I don't have access to).Glevum (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Be bold and change anything you want, I don't think this article is getting much attention anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Split Palaeomerycidae-Dromomerycidae
Despite the similarities of the two pecoran families, they are considered distinct families that are not closely related to each other. The palaeomerycids are Eurasian while the dromomerycids are North American, and the two families differ based on the "morphological construction of the occipital appendage, the nuchal plane, the external morphology of the frontal appendages, and in several key postcranial characters." They were proposed to be of two subfamilies of the Palaeomerycidae, but this appears to no longer be valid. Therefore the Palaeomerycidae and Dromomerycidae should be split into two different articles. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Tagging FunkMonk and Hemichaunia because article splits tend not to get much attention. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in case people are wondering, yes, Dromomerycinae is still a valid subfamily as Semprebon, Janis, and Solounias state, "Janis and Manning (1998) proposed two subfamilies within the Dromomerycidae: the Aletomerycinae (late early Miocene- early middle Miocene), composed of Aletomeryx and Sinclai- romeryx; and the Dromomerycinae which includes two tribes, the Dromomerycini (late early Miocene-late middle Miocene) and the Cranioceratini (late early Miocene-earliest Pliocene)." PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, not something I know anything about, unfortunately! But sure, if the latest sources support it, why not. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone else will comment on the page split, not that I think not will oppose it anyways to begin with, so I think it'd be fine for me to convert the Dromomerycidae redirect page into a full page later, right? By extension, I need to revamp the Palaeomerycidae page as well, there's several inaccuracies in this page anyways such as that they supposedly have an Eocene origin when they, like cervids, moschids, and other pecorans, have an early Miocene origin (palaeomerycids are exclusive to the Miocene). PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you can go ahead, very few prehistoric mammal experts around here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I happen to be doing research on Dromomeryx so I wanted to chime in. From what I understand, Palaeomerycidae is the family that includes Palaeomeryx as the Eurasian sister to Dromomerycidae, which are the North American relatives; I hadn't heard the discussion about splitting them before. I couldn't find this in the articles you cited; the microwear/mesowear paper analyzed North American species, so they used Dromomerycids. The Semprebon et al. (2004) article references Janis and Scott (1987) and states it is "likely that Palaeomeryx is the sister taxon to Dromomerycidae" (on pg. 428). This wouldn't make them different families-I'm not saying they aren't, paleontology is vague! I'm sure you're aware of Prothero and Liter (2008) which was a systematic phylogeny of Palaeomerycidae as a whole and placed Dromomerycidae within Palaeomerycidae [1 ]. In any case, just wanted to contribute to this discussion-I hope this doesn't come off as rude, paleontology can be ambiguous a lot of the time. Xxiphos (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I'm planning on responding soon, but right now, I'm a bit occupied by other tasks in Wikipedia and other places, so hold on to that thought until then. Thank you for responding, though, I appreciate another paleomammology researcher joining in! PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm really sorry for delaying my comment for awhile, was busy working on other projects on Wikipedia. Anyways, about the Dromomerycidae-Palaeomerycidae:
 * The taxonomic history behind the Dromomerycidae is... interesting. It is technically attributed in origination by Childs Frick in 1937 in the source "Horned Ruminants of America," but he mentioned it out of warning against supporting the Palaeomerycidae or erecting the Dromomerycidae as valid families, thinking that the two belonged to the Cervidae based on a quick read. In a matter of decades, however, the Palaeomerycidae would again be recognized and be affiliated with the Giraffomorpha clade with the Giraffidae. The Dromomerycidae in comparison, has a laggy history where although it's recognized as a family, researchers like Christine M. Janis did so only out of caution and thought that they could be potentially within the Palaeomerycidae family (so they used "dromomerycids" more out of neutrality). I am aware of the source by Prothero and Liter (2008) also in which they thought that the dromomerycids were affiliated with the Palaeomerycidae.
 * That being said, I think there's a solid case for making an article for the Dromomerycidae because sources such as "Ampelomeryx ginsburgi nov. gen., nov. sp. (Artiodactyla, Cervoidea) et la famille des Palaeomerycidae" in 1995 argue that the Eurasian palaeomerycids and North American dromomerycids are an instance of parallel evolution. That source and "Systematics and Evolution of the Miocene Three-Horned Palaeomerycid Ruminants (Mammalia, Cetartiodactyla)" point out that the difference between palaeomerycids and dromomerycids is that the latter is characterized by frontal appendages that don't display any suture in association with the top of the skull while giraffids and palaeomerycids have sutures on the tops of their skulls associated with giraffid and palaeomerycid ossicones. Another article "A New Species of Prolibytherium (Ruminantia, Mammalia) from Pakistan, and the Functional Implications of an Atypical Atlanto-Occipital Morphology" states, "In addition, the
 * cranial appendages of palaeomerycids have been classified asfrontal ossicones, due to the presence of visible suture lines withthe skull," justifying that without these traits being observed in Prolibytherium, they did not belong to the Giraffidae nor the Palaeomerycidae ("The Prolibytherium cranial appendages, however, are fused to the parietal bone with no visible suture. The internal structure of true giraffid ossicones is composed of cartilaginous material as well as dense connective tissue. The Prolibytherium cranial appendages, however, appear to consist of cancellous bone surrounded by a thick bony cortex (Fig. 1b), further negating their identification as ossicones").
 * As recently as 2022, another article "Ruminant inner ear shape records 35 million years of neutral evolution" recognizes the Dromomerycidae as a valid family, separate from the Giraffomorpha clade which includes the Palaeomerycoidea and Giraffoidea superfamilies. The full relations of the Dromomerycidae remain uncertain (I would speculate that it's in part because research on North American mammalian families has overall lagged behind in recent decades), but they appear to be more closely affiliated with either the Cervidae or the Antilocapridae (the article argues the latter).
 * The Dromomerycidae is in dire need of further research focusing specifically on them as Prothero and Liter (2008) even stated that 1937 was the last real time that species systematics were reviewed up until the release of the article, which to me honestly indicates that not enough new research papers have been made for them (or other North American ruminants such as the affinities of the Blastomerycinae, but that's opening up a different can of worms). Yes, I know that a few books in the 1990s had reviewed them, but that's not enough for them by 21st-century standards. Regardless, I think that the Palaeomerycidae and Dromomerycidae can be separated into different pages provided that opposing viewpoints are recognized. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry it took me so long to reply as well, busy summer. I read your reply when you posted it and have been thinking of it since—it’s super interesting! You have a lot of strong points of evidence that I didn’t know and will look into for my own research, so thank you. I think your argument is strong, so I agree the pages could be split. You say it well in your last line, opposing viewpoints/an explanation of the split should be added to each page so the audience is aware of the discussion. Thank you for such an in depth reply :) Xxiphos (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)