Talk:Chamitataxus

A fact from Chamitataxus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 March 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the prehistoric badger genus Chamitataxus lived during the Late Miocene and is considered the most primitive badger genus in North America?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/March.

Wikipedia

Mammals: Mustelids 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.
	This article is supported by the Mustelids work group (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

Untitled

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Apparently the suborder Fissipedia is history. I wouldn't adjust the table myself, because I'm not competent. One of you mammalologists might. --02:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, Chamatitaxus is an extinct genus, so it won't make much difference... Thanks for the concern... Spawn Man 04:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Genus

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to the palaeobiology database, the genus is Chamitaxus! Is this another instance of the database being wrong?Glevum (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic