Template:Did you know nominations/Strepsirrhini

Strepsirrhini

 * ... that confused terminology and misconceptions about strepsirrhine anatomy and phylogeny were factors in the media hype over the "Ida" fossil (pictured)?
 * Reviewed: Suliman al-Reshoudi
 * Comment: My apologies to the reviewer, but this one may take some clarification. (A least the expansion between 27 Sept and 30 Sept is obvious, and everything is clearly cited... except for the "Anatomy" section, which I hope to completely re-write in the next day or two.)  The source for the hook may require some technical "translation" for people not familiar with taxonomic and phylogenetic details.  The key statement from the source to focus on is: "Because the Franzen et al. paper provided inconsistent and vague phylogenetic inferences, we clarify terminology and identify the nature of several of the features we critique.  We discuss the key anatomical features that would allow one to diagnose whether an extinct species is more closely related to living haplorhine or strepsirrhine primates."  The confused terminology and phylogeny should be apparent, and the discussion of anatomical traits seen throughout the rest of the paper addresses oversimplifications of primate (and particularly strepsirrhine) anatomy, including the case of the toothcomb (found in lemuriforms, but not adapiforms, although both are strepsirrhines).  Obviously the media hype is discussed at the very beginning of the article.  If there are any questions about this, I would be glad to answer them. –  Maky  « talk » 20:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Maky (talk). Self nom at 20:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I accept what is said above. This is a major expansion undertaken in an appropriate period for DYK. It meets the other criteria and the image is appropriately licensed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)