mammalia

We don't expect them to be consistent even across simians let alone primates let alone mammalia.

And modified again to cover things like having a virus create a new clade of Mammalia by hybridizing mammals and a parasite.

Example: Homo sapiens is of the class mammalia and of the kingdom animalia.

Dinosauria is an entire clade several levels up from mammalia relatively speaking (Aves — every single bird — is a taxonomic class within dinosauria).

It makes no sense at all to invoke the entire of mammalia.

How is that consistent with any of the rest of mammalia?

Nipples, which are the defining characteristic of the class Mammalia to which we belong?

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but humans are of the biological class mammalia.

Technically they are mammals Class: Mammalia Infraclass: Marsupialia.

(funnily enough - chiro = hands, ptera = wings, hand-wings, makes sense) Chiroptera fits under Mammalia in the phylogenenetric tree.

This and a number of other characteristics humans share with only with aquatic mammalia lead the researchers to justify ancient humans and/or relatives spent large quantities of time in the water.

Outside of mammalia: I'd expect arthropods, shellfish, coral, or similar sealife to be the most likely candidates for widely-divergent sizes within a single species, just given sheer abundance of species.

By your criteria, no human before the 18th century (when Carl Linnaeus invented the class “mammalia”) knew what a giraffe was.

I guess this is like "mammal" vs "mammalia".

Admittedly we are vastly outweighed by sea life, plants and bacteria - but our sheer mass dominates Mammalia.

The are talking about taxonomy (order Carnivora in the class Mammalia) not diet.

Mammalia is young, plants are old, and have tamed us in many ways.