Talk:Nimravidae

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)