Talk:Moropus

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.

The article had the following sentence:

They probably fed on roots dug up using their claws.

Chalicotheres had no front teeth, and had only slightly worn molars. How could an animal with such teeth eat roots? More likely chalicotheres were like the extinct ground sloths or the dinosaur Therizinosaurus and used their huge claws to grab leaves from trees.--Jyril 10:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moropus (meaning "slow foot")

Doesn't it mean 'foolish' or 'stupid' foot? (Because scientists were confused by finding claws on what was very obviously a herbivore). 172.164.82.176RKH

Do we really need someone's cartoony fan-art-style illustration of a Moropus on this article? It looks like something you'd see in some mediocre anime fanfiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.37.102 (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is it anatomically wrong? If not, I personally think the style is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed the illistration, so I cannot comment on it's merits or demerits. But I really like the map someone added. It provides something lacking in most paleontology entries, WHERE. How can and why would you provide information about a fossil speciman, and leave out where the fossil was discovered? Even simply stating "North America" is insufficient, North America is a big place. Thank You to whoever added said map. [User retrograde62 23:32 31 May 2011] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.57.112 (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The number of toes and the shape of the front teeth is incorrect. I think the illustration should be taken down. The feet in the drawing are tridactyl, like a dinosaur, wheras the Moropus had a mammalian digit formula, not one like a dinosaur. Read: whoever drew this had no idea about the animal's actual anatomy. Basically they've fuzed a camel and a dinosaur. Take it down I say. --Piatnitskysaurus 7:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and removed Vaihead (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Moropus and Daphoenus.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]