Boogie Boy

March 2013

Hello, I'm 4twenty42o. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Laridae, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! 4twenty42o (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was just a little change of a mistake, but i see now that there is a confusion between Laridae and Larinae in the english Wikipedia. Im just creating the page Laridae with an info box. U can Help me for the text cause my english is bad.--Boogie Boy (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, i saw that recent studies changed the Laridae classification and now Larinae are the only sub-family so i understand the confusion because theyre is no Larinae now. Im gonna correct it in the french part ;)

Stem therian

There seems to be some confusion as to the existence, or otherwise of stem therians, per your edits at Eutheria. Theria is the crown group including both eutherians and metatherians. A crown group, by definition, includes the common ancestor of all the members of its group. The common ancestor of eutherians and metatherians cannot belong to either one of those groups (unless one is paraphyletic, in which case, which one is it, and why?), so even if it had no other descendants besides the members of those two groups (which is unlikely) there would be at least one species that would qualify as a stem therian. You've cited [1] as evidence for the claim there are no stem therians, but not only is there no such statement in the text, but such are clearly shown (but not specifically labelled) in diagram (a) on that page. I don't believe that we have any fossils that are definitively stem therians, although there are some candidates, but that's not the same as saying that they have never existed. Anaxial (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Anaxial. Sure the comon ancestor is neither euterian or metatherian, its obvious. But it's the only one, and it could not have any OTHERS as it was in the cladogram. YOU CAN'T HAVE any candidate to be a stem therian (which is not a metatherian or an eutherian). They have to be stem eutherians or stem metatherians. Except the theorical common ancestor, if a species is not a metatherian or an eutherian, it's not a therian, thats the definition. (sorry for my english) Boogie Boy (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have two issues with that. Firstly, why wouldn't the theoretical ancestor count? Secondly, the cladogram you point to does show (unlabelled) a stem therian that is neither a stem metatherian nor stem eutherian, so I dispute that they can't exist. By way of further example, let us suppose that the common ancestor has three descendants: one that leads to the metatherians, one that leads to the eutherians, and one that has no living descendants. What is that creature? Anaxial (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Before a last message, I want to say that i have used the term "stem" therian for what i prefer to call a "basal" therian. So if I say that no basal therian, wihch is not eutherian or metatherian, could exist, does it change anything? Boogie Boy (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)