Talk:Nimravidae

Mammals Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nimravids & cats

Adding a link to WikiProject:Cats may or may not be suitable, but it should be pointed out that nimravids are not, in fact, cats, but a more distant group that was convergent on felids. Cephal-odd 06:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC) See: Barrett, P.Z. The largest hoplophonine and a complex new hypothesis of nimravid evolution. Sci Rep 11, 21078 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00521-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.180.21.182 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bering Land Bridge as Deus ex machina

What's the evidence for "North America and Asia were connected by the Bering Land Bridge" during the Oligocene and Miocene? I don't think there is any. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a citation to this effect. Anaxial (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoplophoneus & Eusmilus

Article says these genera belonged to the subfamily Hoplophoninae, whereas the wiki articles on these genera say each belonged to the subfamily Nimravinae. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glevum (talk • contribs) 22:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to add a comment on the division between Hoplophoneinae and Nimravinae, before I saw this old comment. The division has been in the article since it was created, but I can find nothing to support it. The following can be supported:

The Barbourofelidae used to be included in the Nimravidae as the subfamily Barbourofelinae. The remaining Nimravids were assigned to Nimravinae.
According to H. N. Bryant (1991) (via Fossilworks), 'Hoplophoneinae' is a subjective synonym of Nimravinae.
After the Barbourofelidae genera were removed by Morales et al. (2001), all the remaining genera were in the Nimravinae of Bryant.
The phylogentic analysis of Peigné (2003) found strong support of the clade Nanosmilus/Hoplophoneus/Eusmilus.

The question is whether others have made the division of nimravids into Nimravinae and Hoplophoneinae. The phylogeny suggests that Hoplophoneinae could be a valid taxon for these three genera. That would leave Nimravinae as a parapheletic taxon for the remainder. But is there a source for this division? Jts1882 (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following a bit of research, I think the following summary is accurate:

Since the removal of the subfamily Barbourofelinae to the Barbourofelidae, the subfamily Nimravinae has continued to be used for the remaining Nimravids (all those currently described as Nimravidae).
Bryant (1996) described to two tribes:
- Nimravini, restricted to only Nimravus and Dinaelurus.
- Hoplophoneini, comprising Nanosmilus, Hoplophoneus and Eusmilus.
Subsequent studies have demostrated monophyly of both tribes, but no one has elevated them to subfamilies, even though the transfer of the Barbourofelinae leaves a vacant level.
Recent studies have generally supported two other groupings, but none of the studies have assigned them to a tribe (e.g. Barrett et al 2016)
- the European taxa: Eofelis, Dinailurictis, and Quercylurus
- the North American taxa Dinictis and Pogonodon

I will update the taxonomy accordingly. Jts1882 (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]