Talk:Marsupial mole

Needs a photo, please.

Michael Jay Williams 06:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has one. It is probably one of the hardest mammals to find in NSW. --liquidGhoul 06:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs a lot more info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.66.198.184 (talk • contribs) .

itjaritjari

Out of the 270=/- native languages still arround, which one is it? please be specific! Enlil Ninlil 03:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

merge from Southern Marsupial Mole's taxonomy section

This section really doesn't talk about the species, but about the family/order. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it should be merged, as it is based on the order and genus but not the species. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Respriation left mysterious!

Not living in tunnels like Talpidae moles, the reader is not told how they manage to breathe. We assume perhaps that they take a breath at the surface and then hold it as they dive beneath. They couldn't get air in such collapsing soils without inhaling sand, so maybe they do like a dolphin or seal swimming throught the soil. We need to find the answer to this and put it in the article. Readers want to know if they have no tunnel, do they have to come up for air, or could they possibly do what Talpidae moles cannot: breathe underground without burrows? Chrisrus (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about them myself, and I think very little research has been done on them, but perhaps the sand is so porous that they can breathe through it. Ucucha 23:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's possible, I suppose. They must have some amazing nasal sand filters if that's the case. I'm sorry to hear that there may be reason to believe that this information is not knowable as maybe no one has figured it out and published it. However, it is another good idea for a thesis project brought to light by Wikipedia. Chrisrus (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Issues

Conservation status? Rarity? How do they find their food? Are they at risk from 4WDs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.234.132 (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

On supposed dryolestoid affinitiy

I think it is undue and an uwarranted case of recentism to include mention of dryolestoids relation: the primary paper suggesting this has not yet undergone peer review! Even when and if it is published, it should not be given any undue discussion, as if it were equally likely to be true (e.g. a false balance) Per policy (WP:PSTS), articles should be predominantly based on secondary sources. A pet theory or bleeding edge discovery, especially one that has not undergone peer review (no matter who writes it), should not be given equal weight, per WP:BALASPS. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right: it's not peer-reviewed. Then again, neither is the source of such data as for example the date some popstar was born. The thing is, how reliable is this information; is it controversial or likely disputed? Chrisrus (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the paper was just peer-reviewed and published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoyangopterus (talk • contribs) 11:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Chaoyangopterus: The link you've provided links directly to the peerJ preprint, which still states in capital red letters "NOT PEER-REVIEWED" with a warning symbol.

@Chrisrus: I'd say that anyone who knew anything about marsupial moles before reading this Wikipedia article (scientist or layman alike) would find it controversial to call them non-marsupials. Peer review is the bare minimum for self-correction in science, and it's risky in principle to treat unpublished drafts as if they were the established record (we risk jumping the gun and promoting or misrepresenting claims that are later modified or rescinded). But I digress: the issue here isn't verifiability or even reliability–as even self-published material (blogs!) by recognized experts can be used with caution per WP:SELFPUBLISH–but policies of due weight and balance: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources; and While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. What that means for this article is: If roughly 99 % of the relevant and recent body of literature states that marsupial moles are marsupials, we devote roughly 99% of the article under that hypothesis (e.g. present it as the current paradigm). We shouldn't dramatically restructure any article each time a new study comes out, or a cladogram du jour poses a different relationship. That would be giving a false balance. Once the dryolestoid paper is peer-reviewed and published, I would be fine with it mentioned briefly within the body of the article, explaining that one new study suggests this hypothesis. Perhaps other experts will comment on the hypothesis, which would give further evidence of the weight it should be given. But currently it should be given little or no attention in the intro (see MOS:INTRO), as that would create a large imbalance. We should neither promote certain ideas nor censor them, but simply give each no more than its due weight. And for the record, I think it would be cool if notoryctids turn out to be dryolestoids, let's see what the experts say. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement on affinities to dryolestoids

Hello, I have tried to update the Notoryctes page to reflect the overwhelming evidence that this animal is indeed a marsupial mammal, within the Australidelphia. My edits include many citations in the peer-reviewed literature to this effect, and no peer-reviewed publication with a good sample of DNA and/or morphology supports the placement of Notoryctes outside of crown Theria, as the dryolestoid hypothesis would require. Unfortunately, within a few minutes of saving my edits, user Anaxial reverted to the previous page with its incorrect implications that there is uncertainty about the crown-marsupial status of Notoryctes. Anaxial pasted below are some peer-reviewed publications supporting the crown marsupial status of Notoryctes. Unless you think all dryolestoids are marsupials (I presume you do not), please help me to update the wikipedia page to accurately reflect the facts as reported in the peer-reviewed literature. Sincerely, Robert Asher

Mitchell KJ, Pratt RC, Watson LN, Gibb GC, Llamas B, Kasper M, Edson J, Hopwood B, Male D, Armstrong KN, Meyer M. Molecular phylogeny, biogeography, and habitat preference evolution of marsupials. Molecular biology and evolution. 2014 Sep 1;31(9):2322-30. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/31/9/2322/2925703/Molecular-Phylogeny-Biogeography-and-Habitat

Horovitz I, Sánchez-Villagra MR. A morphological analysis of marsupial mammal higher‐level phylogenetic relationships. Cladistics. 2003 Jun 1;19(3):181-212. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2003.tb00363.x/abstract

Asher RJ, Horovitz I, Sánchez-Villagra MR. 2004. First Combined Cladistic Analysis of Marsupial Mammal Interrelationships. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 33: 240-250. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790304001666

Phillips MJ, McLenachan PA, Down C, Gibb GC, Penny D. Combined mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences resolve the interrelations of the major Australasian marsupial radiations. Systematic Biology. 2006 Feb 1;55(1):122-37. https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/55/1/122/2842888/Combined-Mitochondrial-and-Nuclear-DNA-Sequences

Kjer KM, Honeycutt RL. Site specific rates of mitochondrial genomes and the phylogeny of eutheria. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2007 Jan 25;7(1):8. https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-7-8

Beck RM, Godthelp H, Weisbecker V, Archer M, Hand SJ. Australia's oldest marsupial fossils and their biogeographical implications. PLos one. 2008 Mar 26;3(3):e1858. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001858

Nilsson MA, Churakov G, Sommer M, Van Tran N, Zemann A, Brosius J, Schmitz J. Tracking marsupial evolution using archaic genomic retroposon insertions. PLoS Biol. 2010 Jul 27;8(7):e1000436. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000436

Meredith RW, Janečka JE, Gatesy J, Ryder OA, Fisher CA, Teeling EC, Goodbla A, Eizirik E, Simão TL, Stadler T, Rabosky DL. Impacts of the Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution and KPg extinction on mammal diversification. Science. 2011 Oct 28;334(6055):521-4. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6055/521

Archer M, Beck R, Gott M, Hand S, Godthelp H, Black K. Australia's first fossil marsupial mole (Notoryctemorphia) resolves controversies about their evolution and palaeoenvironmental origins. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 2011 May 22;278(1711):1498-506. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1711/1498.short

O’Meara RN, Thompson RS. Were there Miocene meridiolestidans? Assessing the phylogenetic placement of Necrolestes patagonensis and the presence of a 40 million year meridiolestidan ghost lineage. Journal of Mammalian Evolution. 2014 Sep 1;21(3):271-84. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10914-013-9252-3

Beck RM, Warburton NM, Archer MI, Hand SJ, Aplin KP. Going underground: postcranial morphology of the early Miocene marsupial mole Naraboryctes philcreaseri and the evolution of fossoriality in notoryctemorphians. Memoirs of Museum Victoria. 2016;74:151-71. http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/32829/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asherobert (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Substantial edits to reflect peer-reviewed literature

I have combined text from the previous Notoryctes page favored by Anaxial with improvements that I have identified. Specifically, evidence from the peer-reviewed literature shows that Notoryctes is within Marsupialia. It is not a dryolestoid; it has a variable but marsupial-like dental formula; it is not the only fossorial mammal to fuse neck vertebrae; the Vaughan et al. mammalogy textbook is good but insufficient to determine the distribution of cloacae (unified urogenital tracts) among mammals. I have also deleted the unsourced quotation from "a 1989 review of the early literature" and added reference & link to Gregory (1910) and Asher et al. (2007) who note that epipubic bones are present but small. Sincerely, Robert Asher

Looks good to me. Anaxial (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is a clear absence of consensus for this proposal. bd2412 T 15:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Marsupial mole → Notoryctes – "Two species are currently recognised, Notoryctes typhlops or Southern Marsupial Mole from central Australia, and Notoryctes caurinus or Northern Marsupial Mole from north western Australia. Given these unimaginative common names for these extraordinary species, Maxwell et al. (1996) proposed the adoption of Aboriginal names: Itjaritjari for N. typhlops, and Kakarratul for N. caurinus. These names have been widely accepted." Benshemesh, J. (2004). Recovery Plan for Marsupial Moles Notoryctes typhlops and N. caurinus. 2005-2010. Northern Territory Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Alice Springs cygnis insignis 14:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Where is the Wiki-relevant rationale? You are proposing abandoning common English names for three words many people who have heard of marsupial moles will not recognise. Srnec (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Srnec, "These names have been widely accepted." Benshemesh, J. (2004) cygnis insignis 06:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Cygnis, the name Notoryctes has always been universally accepted. It isn't an aboriginal name. I think you are confusing this RM (which I oppose) with your other RM (on which I am neutral for now). Srnec (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  That is my point, I'm proposing it is moved to the accepted name from the "unimaginative" and deprecated name.

  I have provided a citation, available from the article that states this point blank. What is your rationale to oppose that? And why? You have mischaracterised the only objection elsewhere, they are also not liking but cant be bothered opposing. You threw up these discussions on a false premise, and that confounds this discussion, which all of sudden you care about opposing. You throw your shit and flee the battle you are trying to create, and are unable to support your actions with anything other than taunts and blinkered assertions about things you care nothing about, evidently. cygnis insignis 15:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Widely accepted by whom? By scientists? Certainly not the general public, and certainly not Wikipedia's audience. The average person will have no idea what a notoryctes, kakarratul, or itjaritjari is, however, "marsupial mole" tells them that it's an animal, it's a marsupial, so probably Australian, and that it's mole-like. Until the Aboriginal names are as widely recognised as "koala" and "kangaroo", the title should stay as it is. Danielklein (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

How do you know this astonishing information, what you are presenting as incontrovertible facts about 'scientists', the 'general public' and our 'audience'? I should know how to address this audience, as I am the one creating the content, I only presume they want some information about the animal. If they want to learn about some animal and avoid being presented with the ancient name, I'm not sure what policy that is grounded on; creationwikis cater to simple names for gods creatures and they be happier being told what to know. I think kangaroo was made up by a visitor, from memory, and it caught the imagination of foreigners, it is called something else in my region. Marsupial mole will still link to and appear in the articles, more clearly to the two or three species, I'm not removing that, what I have added is something more about this animal, more than insisting one name is suitable and blithely asserting another 'most certainly' is not. I can't provide a citation that says that, only one that states, literally', it is widely accepted and replaced the unimaginative name. Your citations have to state otherwise, that this citation is wrong. The policy and guideline all support this move, or the other option, point to one. cygnis insignis 07:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Southern marsupial mole which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)