Talk:Perissodactyla

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Perissodactyla: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2023-09-15 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Unreferenced : Add some references in this section about the anatomy of odd-toed ungulates

This article contains a translation of Unpaarhufer from de.wikipedia.

On 8 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Odd-toed ungulate to Perissodactyla. The result of the discussion was moved.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 February 2021 and 28 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blfaubion.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So we know that horses and brontotheres are hippomorphs, while tapirs and rhinos are ceratomorphs... but where do chalicotheres and hyracodonts fit in? 71.217.98.158 00:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyracodonts and chalicotheres were ceratomorphs, also. Hyracodonts are a family of rhinoceros, and the chalicotheres may have been related to tapirs.--Mr Fink 03:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When first saw the page, I wanted to edit it to make it longer and more info. But as look at the page, just about say someone edit my work, thank you for does who made my work better! From User:4444hhhh

According to the "Taxony" section of the article, under Ceratomorpha, the article states: "Ceratomorpha are odd-toed ungulates that have several functional toes and are heavier than freddie".

I feel this statement needs clarification, at least.

Throughout the article, there is no other mention of "freddie;" which leads me to believe that "heavier than freddie" is a colloquial expression.

Not only should expressions not be included in encyclopedia entries, but this one seems to be highly regional.

This statement should be clarified, or rewritten.

Ummm, do you think "Freddie" might be vandalism? Just a guess. 173.28.244.122 (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12 tons.. Long or short? I have put short for now, sine it says "more than". Cite? Rich Farmbrough, 19:26 28 August 2008 (GMT).

I'm going to avoid edit warring over this, but there have been a number of edits made recently that (aside from violating the Manual of Style) are, to my mind, quite unnecessary. Firstly, to my mind, there is no need to define the meaning of the term "19th century", or any other century, in an article such as this. This is not done at other articles and I can see no reason for doing it here; it simply interrupts the flow of the text, and sounds rather condescending.

Secondly, I can see no reason for adding the word "theorised" in front of the word "Evolution" in the section header. This is, to my mind, misleading - it may lead people to believe that the evolution of the group is somehow in more doubt than it actually is. Remember, a scientific theory is something that had been demonstrated repeatedly; it is not the same as the common meaning of the word - which is akin to the scientific hypothesis, and adding this qualifier to the header may imply the latter. Of course, the specifics may be in doubt, and the article already makes it clear where this is the case, but we don't want to promote fringe theories in an article on biology and taxonomy, even by implication. This is the same principle that is applied at most similar articles on Wikipedia, and I can see compelling reason why this specific one should be different. Anaxial (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the name Perissodactyla, near the top the article states that "perissos" means "abundant/excessive," but farther down the article says it means "uneven". Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambo of New Albany (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Sambo of New Albany (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All on-line references I can find (such as this one) seem to confirm that perissos translates to 'abundant'/'excessive'. I've no idea where the translation 'uneven' came from, perhaps it's just a transferred meaning, but it is all over the internet. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK so the photo of the tapir's foot shows four toes. Since when is four an odd number? Eregli bob (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have three toes on the hindfeet (picture on the right of that image). Besides, as explained in the article, while the perissodactyl foot is, to some degree, mesaxonic, it doesn't necessarily have an odd number of toes - despite the common name of the group. Anaxial (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no such qualification in the text, so I added it. Kevin McE (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states that the species Equus ferus is extinct. According to that article "The wild horse (Equus ferus)... includes as subspecies the modern domesticated horse (Equus ferus caballus) as well as... the endangered Przewalski's horse (Equus ferus przewalskii)." But, if the species, as a whole, is extinct, then surely, by definition, its subspecies would have to also be extinct? If, as stated unequivocally (or so it seems to me) in both this article, and that on the wild horse, both domesticated horses and Przewalski's horses are types of wild horse, then surely "wild horses" (in the sense used in the article) aren't extinct either? Especially since Przewalski's horse, while it may have only existed in captivity at one point, was never domesticated. One solution might be to change the name "wild horse" for E. ferus both in this article, and at the specific one if it's causing confusion, but, either way, I don't see how Equus ferus as a whole can be extinct, if two of its subspecies aren't. Furthermore, the Equus ferus article says that the species is not extinct, and this seems to be supported by the IUCN Red List, which, again, claims that Przewaski's horse is a subspecies (albeit the only living one) of "Asian wild horse". Anaxial (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the other party in this dispute hasn't responded with a week, and there have been no contrary opinions from anyone else, I've changed the listing to what seem (to me) to be supported by the sources. Anaxial (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists: Pig-sized animal found in India was common ancestor for horses, rhinos. This has yet to become scientific consensus, but it's something to keep an eye on. -- Beland (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to Cambaytherium to the See also section. This should eventually be integrated into the article, possibly along with Radinskya, which, however, does not seem to be a true perissodactyl. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anaxial, you may want to take a look at some reference material on English grammar before you go passing judgment on others in your edit summaries. Though I don't intend to edit-war over the sentence in question, I reverted your revert so that your peremptory edit summary would have a reply in the history. There is nothing wrong with the edit @Gob_Lofa made to this article; in fact it reads better with the animals listed in the singular. Reference works tend to refer to species in the singular. If you disagree with that tradition, you have a lot of work ahead of you pluralizing the entries for such articles as horse, tapir, rhinoceros, dog, cat, llama, etc. Eric ^talk 19:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending to edit war, either, so I've made no further reversion. You are quite correct, of course, in that species are generally referred to in the singular. Instead, my objection is that tapir and rhinoceros are not species, and therefore it makes no sense to refer to them in the singular ("horse" is fine, of course, since that is a species - as are dog, cat, and llama). At present it reads like "constituent parts of the USA include California and the New England state." Which I do not believe would be correct. Anaxial (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point, I've learned something now--didn't realize that about tapirs, and didn't think about rhinos. See what you think about my change. Eric ^talk 18:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely fine with that. Anaxial (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anaxial - I'm tagging you since you have a long history of editing this page. It looks like quite a bit of content was added as part of a translation from the German version of this page that reads like total nonsense in English. Can anyone help clean it up? [1] 2605:A601:937:ED01:89DB:F136:6C0E:6AA9 (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under the reproduction and development section I saw that there is a citation needed tag on the last sentence. I propose this slight change to the sentence structure as well as this source: "The young are nursed for a relatively long time, often into their second year, reaching sexual maturity around eight or ten years old. Perissodactyls are long-lived, with several species, such as rhinos, reaching an age of almost 50 years in captivity."^[1] --Blfaubion (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to suggest under the Reproduction and development section: "Newborn perissodactyls are precocial; meaning offspring are born already quite independent, young horses can begin to follow the mother after a few hours." --Blfaubion (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]