Talk:Afrosoricida

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The classification provided here is completely different from the classification at Mammal. john k 16:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this page because of the weak suppotr for Afrotheria. (Note:unsigned)

I have reverted those changes. The support for Afrotheria has been very good in a number of independent genetic studies. Admittedly, the page could use some more balance from the morphology-centric viewpoint, but merely deleting the well-supported genetic taxonomic hypothesis in exchange for the traditional viewpoint is definitely counterproductive. --Aranae 04:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I didnt delete the references to the molecular studies, but I edited it because I felt it misrepresents the support for Afrotheria. Although the Afrotheria is often recovered in such studies, the bootstrap support is actually very low, so the clade is not robust - besides that the only morphological character so far cited in support of Afrotheria, was "movable snout". However the snout anatomy is inconsistent within Afrotheria, and it seperates Afrosoricida from the African ungulates.

Information on weight in Wikipedia ? (Table yes/no)[edit]

Here's the table I made January 30 2023 for Afrosoricida species listed in Wikipedia (when searching from List of mammal genera, the linked genus pages from this page and the species page listed in the genus page).

Information on weight is given for 14/55 species / Information on weight is not given in 41/55 species :

Afrosoricida (14/55 as of Jan. 30. 2023)
Genus Scientific Name Common Name Information on Weight (yes/no)
Geogale aurita Large-eared tenrec Yes
Microgale brevicaudata Short-tailed shrew tenrec No
cowani Cowan's shrew tenrec Yes
drouhardi Drouhard's shrew tenrec No
dryas Dryad shrew tenrec No
fotsifotsy Pale shrew tenrec No
gracilis Gracile shrew tenrec No
grandidieri Grandidier's shrew tenrec No
gymnorhyncha Naked-nosed shrew tenrec No
jenkinsae Jenkins's shrew tenrec No
jobihely Northern shrew tenrec No
longicaudata Lesser long-tailed shrew tenrec No
majori Major's long-tailed tenrec No
mergulus Web-footed tenrec No
monticola Montane shrew tenrec No
nasoloi Nasolo's shrew tenrec No
parvula Pygmy shrew tenrec No
principula Greater long-tailed shrew tenrec No
pusilla Least shrew tenrec No
soricoides Shrew-toothed shrew tenrec No
taiva Taiva shrew tenrec No
thomasi Thomas's shrew tenrec No
Nesogale dobsoni Dobson's shrew tenrec No
talazaci Talazac's shrew tenrec No
Oryzorictes hova Mole-like tenrec No
tetradactylus Four-toed rice tenrec No
Echinops telfairi Lesser hedgehog tenrec Yes
Hemicentetes nigriceps Highland streaked tenrec No
semispinosus Lowland streaked tenrec Yes
Setifer setosus Greater hedgehog tenrec No
Tenrec ecaudatus Tailless tenrec Yes
Micropotamogale lamottei Nimba otter shrew Yes
ruwenzorii Ruwenzori otter shrew No
Potamogale velox Giant otter shrew Yes
Carpitalpa arendsi Arends's golden mole No
Chlorotalpa duthieae Duthie's golden mole No
sclateri Sclater's golden mole No
Chrysochloris asiatica Cape golden mole No
stuhlmanni Stuhlmann's golden mole No
visagiei Visagie's golden mole No
Chrysospalax trevelyani Giant golden mole Yes
villosus Rough-haired golden mole Yes
Cryptochloris wintoni De Winton's golden mole No
zyli Van Zyl's golden mole Yes
Eremitalpa granti Grant's golden mole Yes
Amblysomus corriae Fynbos golden mole No
hottentotus Hottentot golden mole No
marleyi Marley's golden mole Yes
robustus Robust golden mole No
septentrionalis Highveld golden mole No
Calcochloris obtusirostris Yellow golden mole No
tytonis Somali golden mole No
Huetia leucorhina Congo golden mole No
Neamblysomus gunningi Gunning's golden mole Yes
julianae Juliana's golden mole Yes

Gimly24 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

move to Tenrecoidea and changes to better reflect phylogeny[edit]

I've updated the page to better reflect recent phylogenetic analyses (e.g., Everson et al. 2016 in regards to Microgale phylogeny and position of Oryzorictes as closer to Microgale than Geogale). I'd also recommend recognizing McDowell (1958) who had named this clade 40 years prior to "Afrosoricida", and I've included text and citations of the primary literature making the case for this particular nomenclature. I've also quoted from the online version of MSW 2005 (https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp?s=y&id=11100001), i.e., Bronner & Jenkins 2005 chapter in that book, to give further context to their view on the appropriate name for the tenrec-golden mole clade. I should also disclose that I'm a biologist who's contributed to the primary literature and (unsurprisingly) am referring to some of my own (cited & peer reviewed) conclusions & opinions. Thanks to everyone here for helping to make these wonderful animals more accessible to the public. Sincere regards, Robert Asher. Asherobert (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that quote alone misrepresents the conclusions in that MSW3 section. The next paragraph includes:

Tenrecoidea, however, was first used by Simpson (1931) as a corrected superfamily name for Cententoidea, and comprised various "zalambdodont" taxa (Solenodontidae, Potamogalidae, Tenrecidae and extinct Palaeoryctidae and Apternodontidae) but not chrysochlorids (assigned to a separate superfamily Chrysochloridea). McDowell’s (1958) restriction of Tenrecoidea to include only golden moles and tenrecs (thus identical in composition to Afrosoricida) implied a fundamentally different grouping concept to that of Simpson (1931); usage of this name arguably violates Simpson’s (1945:33) guidelines (29-30) for reasonable emendation, and also his recommendation that superfamily names (ending in –oidea) should be avoided. Priority, which Simpson (1945:33) advocated as a deciding criterion only "..when other things are about equal." is thus insufficient to justify acceptance of McDowell’s (1958) revised "Tenrecoidea".

So my reading is that MSW rejects the priority argument for Tenrecoidea following Simpson's principles, i.e. priority rejected if the "group concept now to be recognized is essentially different" (principle 29A, p33), and accepts Afrosoricida as the best of several poor alternatives. Asher & Helgen (2010) came to different conclusions on the best name, arguing for priority, based on a different interpretation of Simpson's principles.
As it stands, it seems to me that Afrosoricida is still widely accepted, although both Afrosoricida and Tenrecoidea are both used in the scientific literature. However, the sources the Wikipedia mammal project has followed for article titles (MSW3 and more recently the IUCN and ASM-MDD) all use Afrosoricida. We would need new independent secondary sources to support the move of the article to Tenrecoidea, although both names should be discussed in the text. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur and will move the page back to Afrosoricida. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Afrosoricida Translation[edit]

“African shrew-like things” probably conveys the sense of Afrosoricida better than “looking like African shrews.” N. Pharris (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]