Talk:Chalicotherium

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.

Untitled

Great to see a prehistoric mammal worked on. The issue with the two daughter genera needs addressing. What does it mean? Are the two names older? These daughter genera should be sunk into Chalicotherium (?)cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems current phylogenetic analyses find Anisodon and Nestoritherium nested within Chalicotherium. Following suit on the term "daughter clade" I called them "daughter genera". I'll try to find some more about it. I've put the citation for the daughter genera and explained a bit more if that's good enough for now. Dracontes 09:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chalicotherium. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070520060059/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org:80/Ancylopoda to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ancylopoda

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chalicotherium skeleton 1911-05-05.jpg

According to the article at File:San Antonio Express. (San Antonio, Tex.), Vol. 46, No. 125, Ed. 1 Friday, May 5, 1911 - DPLA - 439279cac63683e0b9ab35f6d2626412 (page 3).jpg, this was a complete skeleton of Chalicotherium but when I inserted it to the article, it was removed as an image of Anisodon but it seems like this was @Magnatyrannus: using a sock. Can anyone confirm whether the article is correct or not (it's from 1911 so I wouldn't expect it to be correct) but it's a decent image. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image was labeled as Anisodon, so I saw no problem in removing it. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 12:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnatyrannus: My apologies. I was being completely dumb. I was looking at the wrong image entirely. You are correct. I had inserted the text but not the image. Inserted it now. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: The Pittsburgh skeleton is not Chalicotherium but Moropus elatus [1]. The true Chalicotherium has only been found from Eurasia, not from North America. --Paranaja (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]