	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Leptictidium received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Walking With Beasts

Did the BBC edit this page to advertise Walking With Beasts? Hotdamn. I love and I mean, LOVE the Walking With Series and all, but let's not turn this into a page about the 'New Dawn' episode, alright? I'm going to shorten the part on behavior, because a fictionalized description of the animal is not a good source on animal behavior now, is it? Let's shorten Leptictidium in popular culture too, because this is ridiculously long, it's more or less a summary of the whole episode.Seeofseaof (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are they omnivores, as claimed here, or actually carnivores? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.58.119 (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claim for omnivory only lists animals and no plants. Also, that 'Walking with Beasts' is listed as the source doesn't create confidence. RobotBoy66 (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that part. It was a reasonable guess, and of course a TV show has to make guesses. But it is irrelevant and irresponsible for an encyclopedic article. Leptictids were not even particularly closely related to elephant shrews (sengis) – probably they weren't even placentals in the strict sense! David Marjanović (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giant pangolins "completely" bipedal?

This article states that "together with macropods, giant pangolins, and humans, they [leptictidium] are the only known completely bipedal mammals". However, the giant pangolin article says, "By using its tail for balance, it will often walk upright as a biped." Now, that doesn't sound like a completely bipedal mammal to me. Can someone in the know clear this up and correct the article that's in error? Tigercompanion25 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leptictidium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kenozoicum.nl/database/leptictidium.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020123650/http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Schmidt_Shindell.pdf to http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Schmidt_Shindell.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction

I deleted the following paragraph:

However, the presence of epipubic bones suggests that, like marsupials and monotremes (as well as most other non-placental mammals), they instead gave birth to larval young.^[1]

So, first, monotremes lay eggs. But that's just bad wording; the size of the eggs is indeed restricted by the epipubic bones. Second, however, the cited paper describes the zalambdalestid Zalambdalestes and the asioryctithere Ukhaatherium, which have epipubic bones but aren't leptictidans by any stretch of the imagination. If anybody knows of evidence of epipubic bones in any leptictidan, please come forward, because that would be important! David Marjanović (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Novacek, M.J.; Rougier, G.W.; Wible, J.R.; McKenna, M.C.; Dashzeveg, D; Horovitz, I (1997). "Epipubic bones in eutherian mammals from the late Cretaceous of Mongolia". Nature 389 (6650): 440–1. doi:10.1038/39020. PMID 9333234.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Lake nyos.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Novacek, M.J.; Rougier, G.W.; Wible, J.R.; McKenna, M.C.; Dashzeveg, D; Horovitz, I (1997). "Epipubic bones in eutherian mammals from the late Cretaceous of Mongolia". Nature 389 (6650): 440–1. doi:10.1038/39020. PMID 9333234.

[1]