Talk:Mammutidae

Mammals 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.

Palaeontology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Content of the family

Here is the error, this page is Mammutidae, which is the mastodons, but it is redirected to the mammoths, who did not belong to the Mammutidae but to Elephantidae. Dan Koehl 14:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think this page should be wiped out, and the Mammutidae search term should be redirected to Mastodon. I would do it myself, but I am unsure of the process or protocol. 24.21.137.12 14:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is Mamutidae contains more than just the mastodon we know and love. It is a genuine family, in fact the most basal elephantimorph. It has relevance. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the family contains more than just mastodons (the genus Mammut). FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though to be fair, some of the pages other than the Mastodon (the genus Mammut) could use more information and pictures. It's a shame people don't care about the less famous proboscideans. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taxon authority

It should be Oliver Perry Hay, not his son William Perry Hay; see e.g. this source. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discoveries

I find it odd that the family was apparently first described in 1922, but no discoveries prior to the 21st century are described. Would not a description of the original discovery be appropriate here? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this info in the mastodon article. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with mastodon?

It seems that these two pages are describing the same thing. What are people's thoughts on merging the two? Procyonidae (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of Mastodon states that it refers to only the members of the genus Mammut, i.e., is the common name of those animals, whereas Mammutidae concerns several genera in addition to the mastodons of Mammut. Merging the two is out of the question in the same way Felidae should not be merged into Cat. Mastodon should focus on mammutides of Mammut, while Mammutidae should at the very least discuss additional genera.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mammutidae contains genera other than that of the mastodon, so there is no reason to merge. One is a genus, the other is a family. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]