Active Entries
- 1: Into the Abyss: Five SFF Stories About Delivering Destruction
- 2: Five Books About Duplicating Human Beings
- 3: Five Stories About Saying To Hell With Rules and Regulations
- 4: Five SFF Novels Featuring Tunnels
- 5: Five Extremely Grumpy Speculative Novels
- 6: Clarke Award Finalists 1996
- 7: Federal Liberals within two seats of majority
- 8: The Twenty-One Balloons by William Sherman Pène du Bois
- 9: Wave Without a Shore by C J Cherryh
- 10: There's a new gadget at work
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 09:20 pm (UTC)In light of the findings of Wible et al. (2007), we might even doubt whether many of the Palaeocene eutherians even represent placentals. The classification of McKenna and Bell (1997) united many early eutherians such as Cimolestidae, Pantodonta and Taeniodonta (as well as the modern pangolins) into a group called Cimolesta, which was then included in the Ferae with creodonts and Carnivora. While pangolins may indeed be related to carnivorans, Cimolestidae, as referred to above, are not even placentals. What then becomes of the rest of the "Cimolesta"? Are they also stem-eutherians like Cimolestidae, or are they true placentals?
Such questions are not mere curiosities - the answer could have significant effects on our understanding of Palaeocene ecology.