Talk:Gomphothere

Gomphothere genera

The Wiki article for Amebelodon seems to have much more information than that of Platybelodon, including some information about Gomphotheres. I don't have time at the moment, but: a good start would be to regularize those two genera pages. --148.87.1.171 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs revision

The Wikipedia entries on this family, and on most of the proboscidean genera, are out of date. Gomphotheriidae sensu lato is not a valid group. Most of the proboscideans that are called "gomphotheres" on Wikipedia have been reclassified in different families: Stegomastodontidae, Tetralophodontidae, Anancidae, and Ambelodontidae. Gomphotherium is no longer considered the universal ancestor of all mastodonts. -- 97.116.22.77 (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Reliable sources use both Gomphotheriidae and Gomphotheridae. Please explain this in the article. --Una Smith (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Extinction date of 400 CE is dubious

I have been trying to validate the 400 CE extinction date specified in this article. The reference given in the Wiki article is just an encyclopedia entry that specifically ties this date to cuvieronius. The words in the encyclopedia entry itself are also very speculative, saying things like "cuvieronius probably died out as recently as 400 CE," but then giving no scholarly backup for this date.

I also tried for several hours to search through the scientific literature, but was unable to find any articles that validate the 400 CE date. This date seems especially dubious when one considers that virtually every other form of megafuana in North America seems to have died off around 8,000-10,000 years ago (at the very most recent). Until someone can provide a real peer-reviewed source for this number, it should be called into question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nageljr (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Link to german Version and Dating

I think, the link to the german Version of the Article is false. It leads to the Gomphoterium, which is only one part of this Family (here is the english Article to this). As far as I understand this, the correct Link should be this one: Gomphoterien.

Also in the german article it is mentioned, this Family lived from 28.4 Mio onwards till 11,000 Years (should be 9.000 Years BC), the Article here says something from 12 Mio Years till 1.6 Mio. I really would like to find out, which time-span is now the correct one. Please forgive me my bad english -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 09:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why Are The Dates Of The Article In BP As Opposed To BC?

Why are the dates of the article in BP as opposed to BC? Everyone who reads the article is not going to understand the dates unless they read and further research the shoddy Wikipedia article on BP connotation.23.16.152.103 (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)BeeCier

Gomphothere and Clovis culture?

A recent article made the front page of Science Daily: Bones of elephant ancestor unearthed

It seems like this is good information to be added, but I wanted to share and discuss before doing so. Challenger l (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems To Have Been Copied

Aspects of this article suggest that it has just been copied from articles in scholarly journals. For instance, in the section on diet, it describes the creatures as having C3 and/or C4 diets, with absolutely no explanation of what those obviously technical terms mean. This article should be substantially revised to be understandable to the layman.

it also focuses on the technical without being very thorough on the group as a wholeTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

Did the gompotheres emerge in America or Eurasia, because the article implies it emerged in America, where I'm pretty sure the group emerged in eurasia before being pushed into the Americas with the emergence of Elephants, Mammoths, and StegodontsTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@TheDarkMaster2: The problem is that the taxonomy of Gomphotheres is currently in a state of flux, and the term gomphothere historically referred to proboscideans that were more derived than mammutids, but less derived than elephantids. There are loads of proboscidean taxa that sort of fall into that grade likeAnancus that aren't even techincally considered gomphotheres. The article does need a proper rewrite though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, but it has been settled that all the ones currently considered part of the gomphotheres are part of it. Gomphotherium is still a gophotheres. I just think it should be reworked, especially as some one interested in elephantsTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@TheDarkMaster2: Not really, a bombshell collagen sequencing result has just come out suggesting that Notiomastodon is more closely related to the american mastodon than to extant elephants. I remember reading a conference abstract from Mothé et al where they state that the brevostrine clade was closer to extant elephants than classical gomphotheres, thought I can't find a link at the moment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean Stegomastodon? Haplomastodon? or Notiomastodon? This is very hard, of course it all changes suddenlyTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@TheDarkMaster2: South american Stegomastodon=Haplomastodon=Notiomastodon, Notiomastodon is the preferred name due to priorty. The taxonomic history is incredibly convoluted and complex, the paper explaining all of it is here, and is essentially required reading to understand this mess. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

So are they going to fuse all three genera? Cause the main discussion only seems to be with Haplomastodon and NotiomastodonTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@TheDarkMaster2: No as Stegomastodon is a valid genus for the North American species, and the South American "Stegomastodon" species aren't closely related to the North american ones according to phylogenetic results. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah ok, so there's still three genera. I understand now. I still find it problematic to fuse some of these genera, if only for the fact that fossils can't tell you everything. (Lions and tigers have very similar skeletons once the skin is removed). So to truly know the diversity of south american gompotheres is an unfortunate impossibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkMaster2 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"Rhynchotheriidae" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Rhynchotheriidae and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#Rhynchotheriidae until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 19:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Gomphothere → GomphotheriidaeGomphotheriidae – Taxonomic fossil families pages like that of the Gomphotheriidae should be named by family names and not "common" taxonomic names, similar to other pages such as the Deinotheriidae and Mammutidae. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "Gomphothere" is the firm WP:COMMONNAME for this group of fossil proboscideans. It's used for the title of the Britannica article for instance . "Gomphothere" is widely used in the scientific literature as well as the lay press. Basically all proboscidean workers agree that Gomphotheres are a paraphyletic group, as Elephantidae and Stegodontidae are derived from gomphothere ancestors. There have been numerous taxonomic attempts to classify gomphotheres to resolve the issue, some deliberately avoiding using "Gomphotheriidae" for some of the taxa generally considered gomphotheres like Anancus, none of which have gained any consensus. Nobody disagrees that Mammutidae and Deinotheriidae are monophyletic, and there are no effective common names for these groups, making the comparison irrelevant. "Gomphothere" remains the best title to contain this messy taxonomic group, as the term is as inclusive as possible, and does not imply acceptance of any particular classification scheme. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure if this is a good idea, but would it be possible to have separate articles for "Gomphotheres" in a paraphyletic sense and Gomphotheriidae the family proper then? PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  I get where you're coming from, but the family is really inseparable from the concept of "gomphothere", and the fact is, "Gomphotheriidae" is inescapably paraphyletic due to the paraphyletic nature of the type genus Gomphotherium as currently defined. I simply don't think this is a good idea unless there are massive changes to proboscidean taxonomy in the future that attain some kind of consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Palaeontology has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hemiauchenia. As nice as it is to follow convention, the right choice is the one that provides the best treatment of the subject matter. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@ModernDayTrilobite Alright I can accept this discussion as closed and not moved, may you close this request if you can? Thanks! PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alleged "gomphotheres" in the Ramayana

From what I have been able to gather, fringe have been made in Indian corners of the internet since at least 2015 that the Indian epic, the Ramayana mention gomphotheres in the text, e.g. , often invoking the Ramayana as occurring 1.6 million years ago to justify the claim, based on the text mentioning elephants with 3 or 4 tusks. As far as I can tell, these are attempts by Hindu believers to "scientifically" rationalise the text, and do not have a factual foundation. Four tusked gomphothere weren't alive by 1.6 million years ago anyway (at least in the Old World). I can find no evidence that any serious, reliable sources even mention the claim . Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories states that The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position.. Given that the theory is only really parroted in low quality sources like Quora and internet blogs, mentions of the theory should be excluded from this article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Could be WP:PROPORTIONate to mention, but it depends on if decent WP:RS noticed this idea and bothered to write anything about it. Something academic would be preferable. I put "gomphotheres in the Ramayana" into Google's AI but nothing WP-useful popped up. Found nothing in the WP-library, either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Even if there were RS, I don't think WP:ONEWAY would be OK with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

We'll see if any sources to look at turns up. There are several WP:RSPYT videos. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

For the interested, according to the relevant primary text is "decorated by auspicious elephants and horses and great elephants with four tusks ... containing elephants with four tusks and also those with three tusks, those with two tusks" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that I've been able to find nothing other than Quora and blog posts, unreliable YouTube videos, and that "Sanskrit Magazine" article (there seems to be several publications by that name), which has no reputation for reliability reports the claims entirely credulously. I'd agree with Hob Gadling that WP:ONEWAY suggests that we exclude the claim with current sourcing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen any WP-usable source on "gomphotheres in the Ramayana" so far, so yeah. But I've also read Muhammad and the Bible, so I won't be surprised if something pops up. That idea has been around longer though, so sources have had more time to accumulate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)