Hello. I think it's fair to say that Dimetrodon is not a very good example of a mammal-like reptile. If we have to pick one for an illustration, let's find a cynodont instead. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
"It has been suggested that this article (Mammal-like reptiles) or section be merged with Synapsida." This is the usual point of view of someone who is conversant with a subject. However, not everyone is so familiar with this topic to associate mammal-like reptiles with sinapsida; that's why they look up "mammal-like reptiles" in an encyclopedia. These points are true in general as well. By all means, incorporate the information in this article in Synapsia, but leave "mammal-like reptiles" as a separate, searchable topic. A short paragraph detailing the relationship of Mammal-like reptiles to synapsida and a link to Synapsida would suffice.
Mike Sarles Sunday, 2007-07-15T16:05UTC
I speak for more than just myself when I say "I am so confused." "half mammal half reptile" was used in a documentary. Looking this up has made me more confused. This introduction needs to be more succinct. Explanations for what makes it mammal like are in the characteristics, but they're confusing as to how it applies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.245.25 (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Opposed. The study of animals is not taxonomy. I oppose the merger as it implies the taxonomy should rule over all attempts to explain evolutionary trends. The current page allows a lay reader to access ideas of change without any particular lateral thinking. Imposing taxonomy too early imposes the opposite logic: of fixity and knowledge in boxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.19.77 (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)