Talk:Whippomorpha

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles

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.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	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.

Name[edit]

I was wondering: why does Wikipedia still uses the name Whippomorpha, instead of the (scientific much more correct) name Cetancodonta? DaMatriX (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question.. Unfortunately, no one is listening.

As admitted in the first sentence, "Whippomorpha (also known as Cetancodonta) is a whimsical name for the clade containing the Cetacea (whales, dolphins, etc.) and their closest living relatives, the Hippopotamuses."

It seems again and again that Wikipedia's leaders, the Arbitration Committee, don't give a Whippomorph's rump about content.24.22.141.252 (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the case indeed, unfortunately. Guess I can just make the adjustments myself? How does one change the title of an article on Wikipedia?DaMatriX (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I will try to figure out how to fix this, but I may need help. Chrisrus (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whippomorpha (sadly, perhaps) has been accepted even in the technical literature, and was sustained in a recent review doi:10.1186/1471-2148-10-102. Ucucha 04:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, why not move this article to that title? Or at least let's raise the term to the first line and bold it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whippomorpha seems to be the more used term according to a simple Google Scholar search, Whippomorpha yields more articles than Cetancodonta. The very phylogeny the article cites uses Whippomorpha. While Whippomorpha may sound unscientific, peer-reviewed articles seem to support the term. As a result, I moved the article back to Whippomorpha. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy because I just like that word better. It's easier to remember for English-speaking people and just fun to say. However, if it's true that it's not being used anymore, then we'll have to follow what the experts are doing nowadays. I would like to rest assured that searches of the scientific literature are not being weighed on which is more common in all of Google Scholar or whatever, but whichever seems to be the trend in the most up-to-date papers and articles and such. For example, "insectavoria" must have been used many, many times before it was decided it was no longer a valid grouping. The applicability of this example is limited, but I think it makes the point of going by number of hits in litterature searches without checking whether the hits are many because it just used to be popular, and the trend is away from using it. In sum, I like the change but want to be assured that we're not just being biased by what we like better or invalid evidence from litterature searches that don't take into account that some papers might be dated. Chrisrus (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for accuracy, Insectivora was a garbage bin taxon based on convergent morphology. Molecular phylogenies cleared up Insectivora to be a polyphyletic group and it was disbanded. Cetancodonta/Cetancodontamorpha are identical to Whippomorpha, they are are just rival names. I did searches for "whippomorpha -cetancodonta" and "cetancodonta -whippomorpha" for only results since 2009 (so we can filter out "old" science). Whippomorpha narrowly produce more results. I understand that this is contentious, I just think the reason for moving the article to Cetancodonta was kind of stupid. Cetancodonta might sound scientific, but if the principle citation the article uses says Whippomorpha it is non-sense to call Whippomorpha unscientific. I mean the term the passed through peer-review. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Whippomorpha has been used more widely in review books. Commentary is forthcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.151.47 (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop moving this article[edit]

Robert J Asher email and Kristofer M Helgen email BMC Evolutionary Biology 2010, 10:102doi:10.1186/1471-2148-10-102

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/102

Whippomorpha is the name of precedence. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to note that Whippomorpha has precedent. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you left the taxobox and cladogram and stuff, and the centowhater name still has to be in bold. I'm no expert on this topic but I hope you all won't make me clean up the mess as you thrash back and forth! Thanks and GO WHIPPOS GO! Chrisrus (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fossil record shows that this is all BS[edit]

Whales were whales in the early Eocene while the first hippos weren't until the MioceneEricl (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine because there are Pg "anthracotheriids", which are stem-hippos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.165.14 (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Just because the lineages had already split doesn't mean they would necessarily look like their modern forms. Those early whales weren't crown-group whales.dunc 17:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilentWings (talk • contribs)