Talk:Daeodon

Needs description of its diet

Someone with an authoritative source, please address. 98.67.184.188 (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll search for sources. Mike.BRZ (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Jay Matternes Miocene Daeodon.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ancient Mammal at Denver Museum of Nature and Science.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

the added info in the description of daeodon shall not be nominated for deletion nor be reverted back

Tendentious proposition for WP:SYNTH buttressed by WP:ICANTHEARTHAT The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

i have fixed all the problems that were the main cause of the disagreement provided a reliable source fixed grammer if there is still an error then please tell me instead of reverting the edit back i am new to Wikipedia so it is common for me to make mistakes True narrator (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You haven’t fixed all the problems with your edit though. You’re still adding unsourced info. Colossal Cheetah (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

unsourced??? i dont think i have to cite a source for the claim that daeodon weight has not been estimated in any study so far True narrator (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You do actually, you need to find an actual study that says Daeodon weighed 1,000 kg for example. Also Arctodus simus is irrelevant because they aren’t even from the same order. Colossal Cheetah (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I said daeodon might have exceeded 1000 kg in mass and yet theres no published study that estimates daeodon's mass are you blind? True narrator (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Arctodus and Daeodon might not be taxonomically related but they are similair in lenght and height daeodon despite having slender legs like arctodus was robustly built and bulky whereas, arctodus on the other hand had a leaner built True narrator (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Arctodus is irrelevant to the article, and it and Daeodon have very different physiques. Comparing Daeodon to Arctodus, instead of, say, Archaeotherium, to describe it would be like describing a common hippopotamus by comparing it to a polar bear instead of a forest hippopotamus. Mr Fink (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

That's because no entelodont has a properly measured weight height or length thats why i compared daeodon to arctodus instead of other entelodonts also both might not ve taxonomically related but they arre similar in height and in lenght i have mentioned the reasons why daeodon would weigh over 1000 kg and yet common hippopotamus actually have a properly measured length height and mass so comparing it to polar bear won't even make sense in the first place True narrator (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

“That's because no entelodont has a properly measured weight height or length”

There is Entelodon literally has a height estimate on its page, same with Archaeotherium, so using Arctodus is pretty much useless. Colossal Cheetah (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I said weight length and height together Archaeotherium might have a weight estimate but no height nor length same with entelodont True narrator (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Length isn’t really that important when it comes to body size estimates of extinct mammalian predators, they tend to focus mostly on really only body mass (From what I’ve seen). So no, length isn’t really needed here. Colossal Cheetah (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you read my argument? I have said that daeodon was bulky and robust beyond despite having slender legs and yet it was similar to arctodus in height and length despite arctodus not having slender legs like daeodon. Daeodon was bulky True narrator (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Where is this "bulky and robust" claim coming from? You need a source to back this up, and you can't just rely on an animal from another taxonomy to make a guess for its weight. Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The source is taxonomy daeodon is related to whales and hippos who are bulky and robustly built True narrator (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you realize despite this relationship, many scientists still say Entelodonts have a skeletal similar to that of pigs. In addition, there’s a lot of differences from a Hippo and Daeodon skeleton. Daeodon has longer, more elongated legs more similar to that of Suids. In addition, they have very different niches to one another, which is a major reason why their bodies are very different from one another. Colossal Cheetah (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

yes appearance wise they are similiar to pigs however in sheer bulk they are much different take a look at hippos there land dwelling relatives they have a 2 inch thick skin and cetaceans possess the most robust bones and to remind you if you take the long slender legs sway they wont look like pigs anymore and yet legs dont even do much in weight True narrator (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You know that some Suids are bulky animals too right? Once again, this argument gets you nowhere. Colossal Cheetah (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

evidence? Description of their bulk? True narrator (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

they weren't suids and bovids are nowhere near as bulky as hippos nor whales not to mention if daeodon is that tall combined with the bulk it's easily 1000+ kg in mass True narrator (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Using Arctodus simus as a comparison is useless, so why are you using it? Colossal Cheetah (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

After all, the use of Arctodus to describe the dimensions of Daeodon, instead of another entelodont or even another artiodactyl is a textbook example of both "apples to oranges" and WP:SYNTHESIS. Mr Fink (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thats because no entelodont has a properly estimated weight lenght height all together except archaeotherium mortoni who wasnt even robustly built not bulky as daeodon instead it had a slimmer and slender built True narrator (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Who cares if they aren’t as robust? They’re still within the same family, if you want to compare Daeodon to another animal, it has to be an Entelodont, this shouldn’t be that hard to understand. Colossal Cheetah (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

is that your argument? robustness and sheer bulk is a major factor in weight take a look at sarkastodon True narrator (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Using another mammalian predator from a separate order, your argument isn’t going anywhere at this rate. Colossal Cheetah (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

read my previous arguments to understand why True narrator (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Your previous arguments are not convincing. Mr Fink (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

simply because you didnt even read the argumnets True narrator (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Everyone did, and everyone came to the same conclusion. Colossal Cheetah (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

do you even got a single valid statement? True narrator (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion that Cheetah did, proving their point. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Talk:Daeodon/hat