Talk:Treeshrew

Untitled

Is the little tree-style diagram the standard Wikipedia method of describing such classification? Could it be handled better (Perhaps an image instead)?

It isn't standard (the layout below is more standard). Neither layout looks perfect. Definitely something we could improve upon somehow. Pcb21| Pete 21:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Picture?

Someone get a photo of these creatures!! I must say i am intreaged to what this relitive of our actually looks like. I believe they feature in the new guinness advert: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/35459/guinness_evolution/ mastodon 02:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not a primate

A reference to the molecular studies showing that they were primates is needed to be in keeping with Wikipedia standards, any chance of adding one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.167.202.126 (talk • contribs).

Um, what do you mean, "were primates"? They were never primates. They were thought to be primates. Are you asking for a citation for why they aren't primates? I've given one, Mammal Species of the World. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tupaiidae origins?

I'm wondering if the word for Tupaiidae originates from the malay(?) word, Tupai? Gross (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is indeed as per this. Should be added. Shyamal (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncles of humankind?

Okey moleculary they might be distinct because of many tens of million years of indepedent evolution. But morphologically (and neurologically as far as I know) they look extremely alike to our most ancient Plesiadapiform ancestor. I do believe they are at most morphologically unchanged from the time of our common ancestor rather than being the result of convergent evolution. That's off course my PoV, but am I so irrational? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]