Talk:Cingulata

Dasypodidae morphology data

I'm unsure which article would benefit most from this addition but i believe it fits somewhere:

"Only T. matacus presents a true vagina as in most eutherian mammals; on the other hand, in the other species a urogenital sinus is observed. The structure of female reproductive tracts in Dasypodidae contains a mixture of assumedly primary and other derived features. According to the different morphologies of the regions analyzed, a classification of the female genital tracts in three groups can be performed (group 1: Dasypus; group 2: Tolypeutes; group 3: Chaetophractus, Zaedyus, Cabassous, Clamyphorus) and a correlation between each group and a specific sperm morphology can be established." [1]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226626401_Morphology_of_female_genital_tracts_in_Dasypodidae_Xenarthra_Mammalia_A_comparative_survey

Article has valuable figures, including depictions of the urogenital sinus of two species, which is a great visual demonstrating the morphological differences that divides Xenartha from other placental mammals. Bromallium (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Armadillo?

I assume the two pages being separate is a holdover from when glyptodonts were thought to be relatives of the armadillos. New studies show that they are actually firmly nested within the armadillo clade, being more closely related to three-banded armadillos than three-banded armadillos are to nine-banded armadillos. As such I propose a merger of the two pages. Pescavelho (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as firmly nested within the armadillo clade is the very definition of relatives of the armadillos. Look at the given cladograms. Merging would not be helpful. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, this article is about a clade, while armadillo is about a polyphyletic group within that clade. We have plenty of articles where we do the same thing. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any cingulates that are not considered armadillos? Maybe glyptodonts but as stated they've been found to be closely related to armadillos, even the page describes them as "large, heavily armoured armadillos" not "relatives of armadillos". Pescavelho (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Look at the other families in the order. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at other families in the order: Peltephilids are called "horned armadillos", Palaeopeltids don't have their own page, as don't Pachyarmatheriids. Only Pampatheriids are consistently called "armadilo-like" rather than just "armadillo", and this is contradicted by information on that page which says that new studies imply they might be closely related to glyptodonts which would make them "true armadillos", and for what it's worth they even resemble extant armadillo species more than glyptodonts do. Pescavelho (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]