Talk:Camelops

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

Pliocene-Pleistocene? Camelid is the smallest sensible article. --Wetman 09:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. --Jpbrenna 00:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion so bluntly expressed above (I was moving fast), was that these single-genus camelid species articles are breaking up the information to the point that some is effectively lost to the reader. In the list of species at Camelid, just two sentences on the salient points of each of these species would be a genuine improvement. I'm not competent to do this well myself. It's a very good series, by the way. --Wetman 08:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this image come from, as in which museum has these displays of mega animalia? Daily Rubbings 18:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If the range of Camelops starts in the Pliocene, this article shouldn't be in the Miocene Mammals category. - 209.162.56.50 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a cite for the one paragraph tagged as such, I'll leave it to someone else's judgment if the tag at the top needs removed or not.Callcentermonkey (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camelops. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610052715/http://artsandsciences.colorado.edu/magazine/2009/02/camel-butchering-in-boulder-13000-years-ago/ to http://artsandsciences.colorado.edu/magazine/2009/02/camel-butchering-in-boulder-13000-years-ago/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camelops. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904045057/http://www.anzaborregopaleo.org/CAMELOPS.html to http://www.anzaborregopaleo.org/CAMELOPS.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This statement makes no sense: "It shares a common ancestor with the Old World dromedary and Bactrian camel (making it a true camel)." Every animal on Earth shares a common ancestor with the Old World dromedary and Bactrian camel, but obviously not every animal on Earth is a true camel. I think that I know what the author meant, but I don't know enough about the last common ancestor of these species to really fix this. 74.71.77.137 (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]