[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Battat's hair; Prototheria



>>I think that the reason milk
>>doesn't prove mammalness is that a lot of therapsids appear to have had
>>lips, implying that they suckled, implying that they were milk producers. I
>>think these are not considered to be mammals because they lack other major
>>characteristics of modern mammals.
>
>No, no, no - they ARE considered mammals!!  And are so by the VAST majority
>of paleontologists and mammalogists.  Someone posted what may be the only
>technical reference from the 20th Century which considers them nonmammalian
>therapsids.

Sorry, I didn't make this clear. I was talking about extinct therapsids, not
monotremes. I wasn't saying that they aren't mammals, only that the fact
that they produce milk doesn't necessarily prove it.