Talk:Evolution of cetaceans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Cetaceans, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use cetaceans resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

Cetaceans To do: Here are some tasks you can do, as organized by the Cetaceans WikiProject. If you are interested sign up on the project page: Copyedit/Formatting: Beaked whale Expand: Hector's Beaked Whale, Hector's Beaked Whale, Ginkgo-toothed Beaked Whale, Shepherd's Beaked Whale, Archaeoceti, Cumberland Sound Beluga, Blubber, Chinese River Dolphin, Humpback dolphin Requests: List of extinct cetaceans Stubs: Callosity, Cephalorhynchus Images: Images of porpoises are wanted. Featured/Good article candidates: Sei Whale Patrol: Look through the Category:Cetaceans for recent changes Collaboration of the Month: Cetacea Other: See the project page.

"the structure of their ears, which contain an adaptation to underwater hearing that is possessed only by whales." Isn't this the crux of the whole thing? We readers need more information on this particular point. Wetman 06:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Rodhocetus Correction 2 pictures 3 sizes 4 Creationist website and pakicetid evidence questioning

[edit] Rodhocetus Correction

This page states, "The protocetids, which include Rodhocetus and Artiocetus, are another recent discovery. They lived around 45 million years ago. Their principal adaptation was flukes (horizontal bars) on their tails."

This, that Rodhocetus had a fluke, cannot be known at the present time.

Dr. Thewissen stated this in an email: "Rodhocetus tail is not known, it has been suggested that it has a fluke, it has been reconstructed that it was short (as you show it)."

[edit] pictures

this site

http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/BasilAndDor.htm

linked to in another article has pictures that are "public access" and would be good to include in articles - Omegatron 15:42, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

---

This site says that Pakicetus did not hear well underwater: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

I've heard some people say that it could hear well underwater and others say that it couldn't. I think that Pakicetus may have had unusual ears, which later evolved into something that was good for hearing underwater.

Also, I just wanted to say that you are all doing a great job, I looked at this page several months ago, and the improvements you've all made since then are amazing. Thanks!

[edit] sizes

Dorudontids were dolphin-sized, about 5m long. That's what the article said. Dolphins are not that big. Maybe Killer-whale-sized. Dolphins are much smaller, maybe 5 ft. Can the author change this. --ChadThomson 04:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made an edit to this to clarify the size statement. However, we are all collectively, including you, the authors. Please be bold and edit as you see fit. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sidenote: you are probably underestimating the size of dolphins a bit. I reckon the archetypal dolphin length is 3m/10ft. Only porpoises are 5ft. Killer Whales 25ft or more. But yeah, the wording wasn't that great. Pcb21 Pete 14:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creationist website and pakicetid evidence questioning

An anonymous user has considerably altered the pakicetid section to suggest that the evidence for pakicetus as a proto-whale has been overstated [1]. The user cites this creationist website which uses an article in Nature to point up the holes in the case. Lacking a scientific background I don't feel comfortable with adjusting this section, but I don't feel the changes deserve reverting either, since regardless of the creationist slant it's plainly true that the Nature article's words contradict the earlier version of the section. Could someone take a look and sort it out? The Singing Badger 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I was irritated enough simply to excise the objectionable material. Even in a world where the creationist position was epistemologically valid, the excised material would still have been objectionable because it was argument in a vacuum. It did not even set out the orthodox view it was arguing against. 23 Jan 06.

I updated the entry under Pakicetus to include information from the Pakicetus entry. I also removed/reworded the last part of the entry to remove the creationist POV content at the end, which plainly contradicted the information at the beginning of the section.EvilOverlordX 21:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I reworded some of your changes; please double check my edits for accuracy and provide a citation if possible. The Singing Badger 22:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds better than my original text. I added cites from Pakicetus pages, and an additional bit of evidence from Thewisson's web site on the teeth linking Pakicetus to fossil whales. EvilOverlordX 16:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)