# Talk:Evolution of cetaceans

"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)

Both papers are now online at University of Michigan and Nature.com in pdf format, so I took the liberty of merging the references into external links, and hyperlinking to the documents. Certainly they will make useful resources on the page.

EXTREME ERROR. References are mandatory for articles. If they are linkable, by all means link them, but certainly do not move a reference to an external link section.--ZayZayEM 04:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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)."

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!

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)

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)

First of all they show complete skeletons. Nothing like that was discoverd. Just a few skull bones, jaw bones and spine. The rest was interpreted.
The pics of the animals are very cute. However imaginary.
They should show which bones were actually found and make sure people know the pics are figments of an artists imagination.
let's be honest
isnt there a controvery about that the whales came from a hippo like animal and not hoofed-mammals doesnt molecular biology show that the origin of whales is not certain. lets be honest
raspor 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I hate to break it to you, but, hippos ARE HOOFED ANIMALS.  Hippos are a kind of non-ruminating artiodactyl.  Molecular evidence shows that whales and hippos share a common ancestor, fossil evidence pointing towards the mesonychids, which were a group of carnivorous artiodactyls.--Mr Fink 16:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
i meant wolf-like mammals
you seem to know about this. was there not recently a controversy about the origins of whales?
raspor 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be noted that raspor shows considerable enthusiasm for asking questions, but a consistent refusal to accept any answers. .. dave souza, talk 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
dave.
apok has given me a good answer. unfortunatley you seldom have.
do you believe that astrology can be falsified?
raspor 16:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to intrude, but, how does astrology, which is a form of fortunetelling that involves the movements of the stars and planets to give people advice on what to do the next day, figure into whale evolution?--Mr Fink 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
it all has to do with defining science. astrology is more than fortune telling. i dont believe in it at all but it is a great example. 
we were talking about wether astroloyg is a scientific theory. i say yes. invalid but scientific
anyhow please tell me if you believe also there is a 'plethora' of whale transitional fossils
raspor 17:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

Astrology is not scientific, at all.  Since ancient times, the Gods have governed over it, and astrologers never used astrology to enhance the collective understanding of the Universe, like determining the size, temperature or distance of stars, unlike astronomy, they used it solely for the sake of their customers' love lives and planting seasons.--Mr Fink 17:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Mesonychids WERE wolf-like animals.  In life, they would have resembled wolves with pig's feet.  The only recent controversy concerning whale origins involves whether or not whales share a more recent common ancestor with hippos, or mesonychids.--Mr Fink 16:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks apok,
now you seem level headed. one editor said there is 'plethora' of mesonychids to whale tranistional fossils. in my research i found that to be incorrect. can you tell me your opinion on this.
raspor 16:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thanks

He must be refering to the way the Early to Mid Eocene whale fossils, like Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Pakicetus, and Himalayacetus, not only had fully functional legs, but also bore striking similarities to the mesonychids.  Information on the mesonychids tends to be somewhat obscure and or scarce on Google, though.  Have you tried Scholar Google [2]?--Mr Fink 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
mr fink,
do you also believe there is a 'plethora' of whale transitional fossils?
raspor 17:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I just answer your question with those four genera of legged whales already?  These four, coupled with other legged whale genera, especially such as Ambulocetus from the Eocene show a very detailed transition from primitive artiodactyls to whales.  What makes you think that these haven't provided any information?--Mr Fink 17:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
do you also believe there is a 'plethora' of whale transitional fossils? you really didnt understand this question?
raspor 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Plethora" is a vague word when used as a query- and Mr. Fink's (or any other editor's opinion) on what constitutes a "plethora" is irrelevent to the improvement of the page. He has provided you with specific information instead of personal opinion, and as such he has illustrated more than was asked. --HassourZain 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
A superabundance; an excess. That is the on-line defintion. Does not seem vague to me. And it was other editors choice of words. The point is that it seems that many here are very uniformed or lack analyticals skills and are writing these articles which require both. 
The are saying something is not 'scientific' without know what the term means. They refer to 6 fossil bones as a 'plethora'. They cannot logically walk through a concept. It is all rote learning and a sad commentary on the US education system
raspor 19:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The terms "superabundance" and "excess" are value-laden words that do not necessary have a strict meaning, either. They express an opinion, not a falsifiable (as you've been bringing up) assertion. Six fossils, at least in my opinion, constitute strong evidence in favor- and as far as whether six constitutes an excess, in a specific area with such a dearth of preserved information, more than one is significant.
I know it's hard to avoid, but please try not to use talk pages to extol a personal viewpoint unless it constructively adds to the discussion. Raising small points that do not add any substance to the discussion or article itself is generally not a useful way to spend time editing. --HassourZain 19:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Plethora was not my choice of a word. Interesting that you told me that raising small points does not add substance but that is exactly what you did. No to me it is not reasonable to base the theory that whales came from land animals on a couple of very partial skeletons. What people should know is how much evoltuion is based on guessing. There are few experiments. Mostly interpretation. How do we know that those were not just defomities. To make a theory and then scramble for any evidence is not the way to go. It is unobjective. Darwinism cannot be falsified and is not a scientific theory. Popper agreed with that.
Are you going to waste time bringing up another small point?
raspor 19:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect! I was refuting your small point. Additionally, your assertion of making a theory before observing evidence means absolutely nothing without evidence. :) --HassourZain 19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
the point is there is little evidence of whale evolution and what evidence there is has been interpreted unobjectively.
at least be honest raspor 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't disrupt the flow of conversation by neglecting to indent, please. To address your point, you are incorrect. There is plenty of evidence that points to the evolutionary path of whales, and I see no evidence that it has been interpreted in anything other than an objective fashion. Would you like to provide some to the contrary? --HassourZain 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No, Raspor, you're the one wasting our time with small points.  I know what "plethora" means, what we want to know is what you mean by "plethora of transitional whale fossils"?  You fail to, if not refuse to realize that an enormous amount of information can still be gleaned from a few bones.  On the other hand, do realize that we have found COMPLETE whale skeletons from the Eocene, which gives us a good idea of what whales were like early in the group's evolutionary history.  Perhaps if you actually took the time to read about whale evolution and paleontology, you would understand this.--Mr Fink 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
yes but i believe in accuracy. it gives a wrong impression. there is NOT a plethora of whale fossil bones and to say to is to give a false impression.
i believe in accuracy sorry.
raspor 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There's not a plethora of whale fossil bones, but there is a plethora of evidence within the bones that are available. Speaking with accuracy to what Mr Fink was saying, that is. --HassourZain 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
wow so a few bones is a super-abundance? that seems fakey to me.
anyhow you will agree that there are few if any complete skeletons, and maybe 20 or so bones that darwinists use to say that the evidence is overwhelming?
raspor 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You are deliberately confusing the terms. There are a few bones, from which lots of evidence can be drawn. --HassourZain 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
To use an analogy, in a court of law, it takes only a tiny amount of DNA residue to provide immense amounts of positive assertions of information and evidence regarding a given person's actions, presence, or what have you in a certain place, with a specific item, etc. The material's physical size can be minuscule but provide strong evidence. More material evidence only makes the case stronger.  --HassourZain 20:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
so you agree that there are very few transiitional fossils. thanks
DNA has  lot of info in it. thousands of times of what few bones has
thanks for proving my point.
please do not respond
raspor 20:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He was making an analogy, not agreeing with you.  Your opinions and wordgames can not wish away the fact that there are transitional fossils of whales, with many recent whole skeletons found, and that libraries' worth of information has been extracted from those fossils.--Mr Fink 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mr. Fink, and I am free to respond to whatever I please on talk pages. Your assertion that DNA has lots of information while bones have little is disingenuous. You have failed to understand my meaning. --HassourZain 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"many recent whole skeletons found"
where? when?
libraries worth of interpretations
raspor 20:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[3] and [4]
Try looking there--Mr Fink 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Raspor, please stop disrupting the talk page with unindented text. Standard formatting states that you should indend using a colon (:) once for each indent above you, plus one. Additionally, place comments after the last comment on the indent line that you are responding to (instead of bumping mine out of the way as you did). --HassourZain 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Raspor is obviously just a Creationist or ID believer (well same thing really), trying to push that POV because he's angry that Evolutionary facts a presented on Wikipedia. He has demonstrated that there is absolutely no point in trying to debate with him (just like all the others like him), they will simply never get it. --Hibernian 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was told that not indenting was disruptive. So I guess you are dispruptive. anyhow I really feel it should be mention that there is not a 'plethora' of intermed whale fossils. When people look into it an find out its a lie it makes them disbelieve the whole shabang. Anyhow so you are saying that Creationists or ID believer should not have a say here. I think that is what is going on here raspor 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
They should have a say on here, but they should be proportionally represented in the article. In order to preserve neutral point of view (one of the most important parts of Wikipedia is the neutral point of view policy, which insists that proportional representation be given to ideas. The fact is that the research community does not think that there is a lack of evidence regarding cetecean evolution, and as such it would not be possible to say in a neutral fashion "There is not a plethora etc." in the article. --HassourZain 14:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
but can it be mention the actually number of bones that are used to make the cute pictues and cute skeletons. and here is why. untill very recently i thought that there were thousands of fossils that showed us all this transitions. now a realize in many case there is not even 20% of a skeleton. i thought that evolution was gradual. but now i found out that most creatures appeared suddenly. i beleieved that ontogeny repcaps phologeny. that was a lie. and darwinism is not as validated as gravity. that is a lie. see since no one is allowed to criticize darwinism all these error are propounded sometimes for decades. i think morphogenic fields is where this will lead. research in that will be stifled as long as darwinism is a sacred cow.    well i better stop. i have found out that here doubting darwinism = disruption. and the comments will be removed or moved.    if anyone want to work with me to make this article more objective visit me in my private quarters  raspor 15:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that one important thing to remember is the way the scientific method works. It draws a conclusion given the evidence it has access to- the explanation of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution has some very strong evidence given the limited field from which it pulls in this case. Other editors are not after you for doubting Darwin's theory of natural selection, they are after you for wanting to give undue weight for a position that does not have as strong a standing in the world of research. I certainly think that any scientific proposition that has not been explicitly proven but which is drawn from inductive/deductive logic should always be open to question. For the most part, though, many people who DO want to question it have an agenda that wishes to advance superstitious or nonscientific thinking- that is to say, thinking that does not have its roots in drawing conclusions from evidence, or other fallacious reasoning. --HassourZain 15:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
So to recap, poor raspor has now found that a few fossil bones can be used by palaeontologists to reconstruct an estimate of the whole skeleton, and so provide the basis for an artist's impression. And so has lost all belief in "darwinism". Of course the "plethora" term came from a response on a talk page, and isn't in the article: one person's plethora is another's paucity. Next week, raspor may find that rainbows are caused by the physics of light so that each one is not miraculously created by God to celebrate the flood. Or alternatively s/he may find that physicists don't personally examine every water droplet, and so lose all belief in physics. .. dave souza, talk 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
since doubting any aspect of darwinims is considered disruption here. if anyone wants to see my response go to my talk pageraspor 15:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is it impossible for this person to comprehend that a) there have been several complete skeletons of primitive Eocene whales found, b) that it is possible for scientists to gather information from incomplete skeletons, and c) that there is an enormous difference between "doubting," "dissidence," and "scientific examination"?--Mr Fink 15:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You keep beating me to the gun, Apokryltaros. :) I just wanted to comment here as well that all cases for evolution are drawn from inductive and deductive conclusions about biological progression and evidence- it certainly can be questioned, and MUST if evidence is presented which is contradictory to the conclusions so far. The matter is, though, that there has not been any positive evidence presented against it, only gaps in the map which can be filled, as all inductive reasoning results in. --HassourZain 15:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is a great start, but it needs to be unbiased, adapting for both evolutionists and creationists. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but, you do must realize that a) Wikipedia articles are allowed to be biased towards a particular view that the most evidence supports, b) Biologists and paleontologists assume that whales evolved from primitive artiodactyls most closely related to either the mesonychids or the hippotami, or both, c) Creationists believe that God poofed whales into existence as they look now, on the 4th or 5th day of Creation 6000 years ago, and d) the Fossil record, particularly that of the Eocene period, supports b), and not c), therefore e) the evidence provided by the Fossil Record is the reason why this article is biased towards biologists and paleontologists.
In other words, even though there is a small minority of people who think that the Earth's Moon is made out of cheese, Wikipedia is under no obligation to provide a voice for this particular view.--Mr Fink 01:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
While Fink isn't precisely correct about policy, it is close to how he describes it. Essentially, the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV states that sufficiently minority views should not be mentioned because to do so by nature gives them undue weight. JoshuaZ 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Even, if that's a correct interpretation of policy, that still shouldn't prevent adding text that is validly critical of whale evolution. And it shouldn't really matter who makes those arguments. --41.135.17.23 (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, all of the so-called "criticisms" that the vast majority of editors who bring this topic up are always myriad rewordings of either "evolution of anything never occurred because I don't feel like learning about it," and or "evolution of anything never occurred because it contradicts and gravely offends my religious beliefs."  And yes, it does matter who makes such arguments, as Creationists and other science-deniers do not reject evolution for scientific or even logical reasons, what with this page having a scientific topic, and all.  Furthermore, if Wikipedia does pander to a fringe minority, it would compromise the quality of the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia provide some sort of label for exterior link, such as "Opposing Views" to established scientific findings? I have a real problem with the new link added. The page hints at lack of smooth transitions between earliest whales and modern, of course, this should be, considering an estimated 10% of fossils is all which have been presently recovered and the gap may be larger than this, some fossils may never be found. The link provided is certainly not science if it is an "ID" perspective on whale evolution (due that no empirical evidence for intelligent design exists), but readers may not know the difference. Further, I do not know what peculiar views on God designing or lack thereof have to do with whale evolution in the first place! I really do not feel the link belongs on the page at all. It has nothing to do with "cetacean evolution", however it does have something to do with Intelligent Design. I would prefer some to review this link, and see if it actually provides credible information on "evolution of cetaceans".

What you write is a bit confusing, but how is Neodarwinian macroevolution more scientific then postulations of intelligent design? 41.135.17.23 (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Evolutionary Biology is a science because A) there is evidence for evolution occurring, and B) it provides explanations on how and why evolution occurs.  Intelligent Design is not scientific at all because Intelligent Design makes no attempt to explain anything, merely using "DESIGNERDIDIT" as a handwave to stop scientific inquiry and avoid doing hard work.  If Intelligent Design was scientific to begin with, then Intelligent Design proponents would be easily able to explain how it is science.  But proponents have never ever bothered to do so.
Having said that, please stop soapboxing to imply that Evolution is not scientific simply because you have no interest in learning about it.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It should be in an opposing views section to itself if this link is even allowable by conservative or liberal standards, clearly implied that this is not science, neither related to actual evidence for cetacean evolution. *yawn* If every opposing view are added to the external links, there won't be any room for legitimate scientific links on cetacean evolution.
The contributor apparently has contributed very limited information to Wikipedia, thus giving no indication of their comprehension of the complexity of this issue, and seems interested in Evangelism. This page was not intended to evangelize, but to provide up to date information on the Evolution of Cetaceans, and an "ID Perspective," is merely this, an Intelligent Design perspective, and belongs categorized under Intelligent Design...

[Whale Evolution - Dr Marc Surtees brings an ID perspective] Removed URL to spam link from talk page.
Readers are forced to ask themself, "What even is an ID perspective"? It is an intelligent design question, it should be on Wiki's intelligent design entry, which is by all means, unrelated to the issue cetacean evolution. Personally I do not feel such links belong on this page, unless there is empirical evidence to support the information.
It is reasonable, if a section were added to this page which provided disclaimer of sorts, a clear explanation of the Opposing Views and yet, why they are *not* based on  scientific evidence. Provide a couple links to outside sources to humor the opponents to evolution. I feel this would be more than reasonable, yet, by acknowledging, it would still be giving their view too much attention and credibility. That is to say, are links to the Flat Earth Society found on Earth Geology or Geography pages, or links to outdated science? Such views are religion, not science. Beyond this, Intelligent Design simply does not belong on this page at all. Cetacean evolution is not even in dispute, it is a matter of documented fact today. Such links certainly do not belong among legitimate sources/references, only to confuse readers which are fact and which, religious views.
Update: the contributor of the Intelligent Design link was apparently a vandal and "rebuttal" link removed from whale by Mnemeson.
—The preceding  (-Sharon Mooney) unsigned comment was added by Edwardtbabinski (talk • contribs) 13:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

It has been that we make subcategories for the Category Evolutionary biology. Now I wish to place this along with human evolution, horse evolution into their own category. The only problem is what can it be called and should there be one? Enlil Ninlil 05:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If anybody has a link to put Indohyus as a reference as to a possible ancestor of cetaceans I strongly recommend it. I recommend a stable news article of long standing duration. Lighthead þ 02:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

See the Indohyus article here. Lighthead þ 02:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If, according to the family tree showing the evolution of Cetaceans (amongst others), Protungulatum and Chriacus are in fact ancestors, shouldn't they be mentioned in the article? --Maurice45 (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, Protungulatum deserves at least a brief mention as being the earliest ungulate ever.  I don't know about Chriacus, though, as arctocyonids (which it is) aren't terribly relevant to cetacean evolution.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The article states that "[t]hey had small brains; this suggests they were solitary and did not have the complex social structure of some modern cetaceans." I changed the last part, which originally just said "modern whales." I didn't know baleen whales had "complex social structures"? To my original point, how does one equate small brain size to a solitary existence? Unlike what the sentence originally stated, many relativley large-brained baleen whale species lead (for the most part) a solitary existence. Anyone suggest a way to correct the sentence in question? Jonas Poole (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; birds are social, and they have.. well.. "bird brains". For that matter, some INSECTS are social. If brain size really has something to do with sociality, there should really be a refference. 76.64.156.168 (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The article refers to the "complex social structure of some modern cetaceans", which seems rather different in kind from the much simpler social behavior of insects and birds. However, I agree that it definitely needs a reference. Otherwise, for all we know, it is only the opinion of the original editor... 80.235.57.239 (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Do the different creatures go in order of how cetacean supposedly evolved to become dolphins and whales today, or is each section a new theory of how they originated? Thank you. 209.151.52.192 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Other than the first part of the Earliest ancestors section which discusses the Mesonychids, it seems to be a pretty straight forward explanation of modern theory on whale evolution to me. I'm not an expert on the subject though. Can you be more specific about your complaint? -- Dougie WII (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I can see what the OP is saying here in that perhaps the structure of the article could be improved to clearly illustrate the theorised evolutionary course. I was thinking actually each section may benefit simply by having the approximate time period included (e.g. Ambulocetids and remingtonocetids (50-49 MYA)). This would show that the sections are chronological or otherwise? Unfortunately, in many cases the article referenced (e.g. Protocetids) does not exist so I can't give a complete set of dates at this time. Does anyone have any further thoughts? -- Nick Ottery (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The DNA and embryological evidence of the terrestrial origins of cetaceans needs to be added to the list. While accurate, the current three bullets seem incomplete and flimsy.  -Glyph250

... of the alleged intermediate fossils within the evolution form land mammals to cetaceans? --41.135.17.23 (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A) Yes, as soon as we get more public domain photographs of them into Wikimedia and figure out how to insert them into the article without making it look cluttered, and B) Your use of the word "alleged" makes it sound like you're too reluctant to bother looking in search engines like Google, I mean, yes there are bones and skeletons of land-dwelling whales and their immediate ancestors.  Then again, if whales aren't descended from land-dwelling ancestors as you're implying, then why is there no evidence of them being magically poofed into existence as according to the Bible?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that images of actual skeletons are more "citable" than restorations, and we do actual have such photos of most of those animals. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a better way we could place the images so it does not look so scattered and messy. The necessary image clutter makes the page hard to read. Suggestions? A. Z. Colvin • Talk 02:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm intending to add contents into this page, and at the same time reorganise the description for each family. For each family, I'm trying to group their characteristics into General, Skull morphology and Postcranial morphology for the time being, starting from Pakicetus. Since I'm new here, if I made some mistakes with anything at all, please do let me know. (especially with the syntax.) Thanks and cheers. G1noah (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

To previous authors, I have integrated most of the previous contents into the present one, without deleting them directly. G1noah (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Done with adding more information to families within order Archaeoceti. Will continue working on this article. For more information please visit my talk page. G1noah (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is missing an easy to grasp timeline of cetacean evolution. For each proposed ancestor of whales one has to read the whole paragraph to find out when and where they lived.
Also, how to include the new finding in http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44867222/ns/technology_and_science-science/ about a pretty old (49 mya) fully aquatic archaeocete (btw, this species is missing altogether in the article).Northfox (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, There is a thread here you may be interested in, about a consistent naming for articles dealing with evolution of taxa. Thanks! --Cyclopiatalk 17:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe this page could use a few additions in some areas

I believe the page should go into a little more detail about the loss of hind limbs and the causes or benefits that came from it.
Try to find information about what ecological reasons led to the change from teeth to filter-feeding.
Add a section about skull morphology on baleen whales as it is different from ancestral versions.
Cascioli.4 (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Here are some general suggestions that I thought would be helpful to the end of the article.
1. Since there is a section about early baleen whales and early dolphins, it may be a good idea to add a section about early porpoises since they're also a part of the Cetaceans. In general, too, porpoises are barely discussed in the article.
2. In the "Early Echolocation" section, it may be useful for readers to have more background information about echolocation and why it has been so helpful for Cetaceans. Currently, the section discusses where echolocation probably originated, but information about why echolocation stuck around to modern Cetaceans and how it developed/evolved over time is important to include as well.
3. In the "Skeletal Evolution" section, more information and research should be included. The current information seems disconnected, short, and lacking in research evidence. Skeletal evolution is one of the biggest evolutionary topics for Cetaceans, so expanding and organizing this section would probably be useful for readers.
Doan.77 (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the thought on adding more detail on the loss of hind limbs, considering it is one important transitions from land to water. Another idea, I have added a few points to the pelvic bone section of the skeletal evolution.  I think this section could go way more in depth. One last idea is maybe a section on why some think the transition from land to water occurred
Iwais.1 (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2014

This review is transcluded from Talk:Evolution of cetaceans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Modern evolution of cetaceans" I'd think "continued" might work better than "modern" here?
Good point, modern generally refers to the last 2000 years. However, "Continued" is also vague because it's continued from where? How about "Recent evolution" (which I suppose also has the same vagueness) or "Cultural evolution"?
"Cultural" wouldn't cover "Environmental factors", so recent is better. But I'm sure there must be something even more appropriate...
changed
"Their fingers, however, retained the mobile joints of their ambulocetid relatives. The two tiny but well-formed hind legs of basilosaurids were probably used as claspers when mating. The pelvic bones associated with these hind limbs were not connected to the vertebral column as they were in protocetids. Essentially, any sacral vertebrae can no longer be clearly distinguished from the other vertebrae." Needs a source.
added
I'd expect more images of extant cetaceans? It is a bit too palaeo-centric in this regard, maybe...
Do you mean living cetaceans or cetacean skulls?
Anything. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I added three
There are two places where images are placed on the same "line", I think this is discouraged as "sandwiching".
I see one (next to the lead), where's the other?
Under Skeletal evolution. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Those aren't sandwiched, they're just really big. If text were between them I don't think it would look very good.
There is a great deal of overlinking. You can use the Highlight duplicate links tool to find these.
I have no idea how to access that tool
Here's the script:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I used it and nothing's highlighted (so either I did it wrong or there aren't any duplinks)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
"About 80 of the 87 modern species in the order Cetacea." Why "about"?
Good luck counting!
In that case, no need to be ambiguous, you could say "A selection of extant species in the order Cetacea" or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Done
"A phylogeny showing" Phylogenetic tree?
done
"triangular teeth of the mesonychids and those of whales." Early whales?
fixed
"molecular phylogeny data indicates that whales are more closely related to the artiodactyls" Since mesonychids are only known from fossils, no DNA, how can this alone determine this? I think it is rather a combination of DNA and morphological analysis. I can see this is explained further below, but at this first mention, you present it as if it is only based on molecular analysis.
Morphology says mesonchids but phylogeny (and morphology to some extent) say artiodactyls. Should I continue?
You mean elaborate? If so, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
done
"two groups diverged well before the Eocene." You could give a date here.
Not too sure there is a date of any kind, just that it's before the Eocene
"the recent discovery of Pakicetus" Recentism. This will not be a recent discovery forever.
fixed
"the earliest archaeocete." Explain.
where is that? The earliest archaeocete is Pakicetus
No need, since you've explained the term now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
"The skeletons of Pakicetus show" I'd say fossils instead of skeletons here.
fixed
"which modern artiodactyls have lost." And modern whales, presumably?
fixed
"An theory suggests that the earliest ancestors of all hoofed mammals were" What theory? Proposed by who? Also "an" is grammatically incorrect.
fixed
"The traditional theory of cetacean evolution was that whales" Proposed by who, and until when was it prevalent?
added
"However, more recent molecular phylogeny" From when, by who? "Recent" means very little in an "eternal" encyclopaedia, and should be avoided.
removed "recent", many people did molecular phylogeny between Cetacea and Artiodactyla
"as marine endotherms" Explain endotherm in parenthesis.
it's wikilinked, does it need to be explained?
Hmm, I guess the term "hot-blooded" isn't used anymore, perhaps you could have it in quote marks, or writer that they produce their own heat... FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
added "warm-blooded" in parentheses next to it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
"identified as an Artiodactyla" Why not just artiodactyl, as earlier?
Artiodactyla is the actual name of the order (like Felinae and feline)
Obviously, but why are you inconsistent in use? In any case, I'm not sure if this use is incorrect, would you ever say "identified as an early Felidae" instead of just "an early felid? FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
fixed
"it has two trochlea hinge" Plural, should be hinges.
fixed
"shared some of traits of modern whales," Malformed sentence.
fixed
"including a thick and heavy outer coating" Hair is known from this fossil? Never heard about that, sure? I see it is also on the genus page, maybe it was copied from there? The fossils seem to just be bones.
since it's from the early Eocene, the hair (or at least an outline of the creature) was preserved
Can't find any other reference to this, seems dubious, could you check the source? FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
It says that Thewissen reported it to have "a thick and heavy outer coating" but it never says how he figured that out. Should I just removed that sentence?
Hmm, I think it's worth researching this, if true it would be important for the article, if not, it should be removed from both here and the Indohyus article. You should look if you can find more info on Indohyus from scholarly sources. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 Not done just flagging so I don't forget later
Everything else that discusses Indohyus just talks about its bones. Should I just remove the mention of hair?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I think so, it seems like a very dubious claim, the sediments the animal was preserved in don't seem to be the kind that preserves soft tissue. As a bonus thing not related to this article, it should probably be removed from the genus page as well... FunkMonk (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
"that are thought to be the earliest known whales," Earliest known cetaceans might be more appropriate here, since the definition of whale seems iffy.
done
"Early ancestors" Not sure if this is a proper title. No one can say any of these genera are direct ancestors rather than just early offshoots of the ancestral group. Early relatives/members/cetaceans or such might be better.
fixed
Indohyus isn't an archaeocete, so not sure if the new title is entirely appropriate either. I think "early evolution" or "evolution of early cetaceans" might be the best compromise, to make it consistent with the title "Evolution of modern cetaceans" below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
changed to "Early evolution" to keep it consistent with "Ongoing evolution" and "Skeletal evolution"
I'd also expect more photos and diagrams of actual fossils in addition to/instead of fanciful life restorations; fossils are the actual evidence. For example:[6]
I've added some in the Skeletal evolution section
"of the auditory bulla" Mention that this is an ear bone.
done
"According to a study don in 2009" Though there of course is a typo, I'd just say "according to a 2009 study" in cases like this.
fixed
"the teeth of pakicetids also resemble the teeth of fossil whales" Later fossils whales/cetaceans? As both are in a sense whales?
It was pointing out that Pakicetus has some whale-like features despite being terrestrial. Teeth was one example
Perhaps you should avoid using the term whale too much, if it is ambiguous and isn't a real clade.
replaced with "cetaceans"
"and having serrated triangular ones" Replace ones with teeth.
done
"depending on tympanic membrane" On the.
done
"morphological analysis by Thewissen et al.," When?
added
"Hence pakicetids were most likely an aquatic wader." Mix of plural and singular.
fixed
"By using stable oxygen isotopes analysis, they were shown to drink fresh water." If this is supposed to imply that they did not live in the ocean, state it.
added
"Ambulocetus, which lived about 49 million years ago, was discovered in Pakistan in 1994. " Perhaps specify that these are considered cetaceans, as it seems unclear whether the former types mentioned are.
If it weren't it wouldn't get its own section. I thought it was pretty obvious that it was
"dorsal side of the skull, but they face more laterally" Could either replace or explain technical direction terms.
fixed
Dorsal means upper or top, though, not back (hind). It only means back, as in a back, when referring to vertebrae, yes, but not in skulls. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
*Throws anatomy book in the trash* -- Fixed
I think the book s fine, blame the English language instead, which uses the same word for a direction and an anatomical feature... FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
"was restricted into one plane." Restricted to?
I believe this is the correct word choice since their locomotive capabilities were restricted as opposed to terrestrial mammals
"Although they could walk on land, as well as swim," In addition to swimming?
fixed
"a way of swimming similar to caudal undulation, but uses energy more efficiently" Something odd with the grammar.
change to "... but is more energy efficient"
"This can be seen from" This is demonstrated by.
fixed
"which will later evolve to become the" Why present tense?
changed to "but eventually becomes..."
"According to Spoor et al." Date.
added
"remingtonocetids were probably amphibious whales that are well adapted to" Why suddenly present tense?
fixed
"had remained unchanged since pakicetids." Seems an odd way to put it. How about "until this point" or some such?
that would imply that it's different in remingtonocetids (it's not)
The captions of the life restorations would be more useful if they mentioned family rather than order after the genus names.
then I couldn't use some images because they would have the same caption (and some the same relative date)
You shouldn't replace the genus names, just write what family they belong to. So for example "Rodhocetus (Archaeoceti cca 45 Ma)" becomes "Rodhocetus (Protocetidae cca 45 Ma)". FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
done
"suggesting that Maiacetus gave birth on land." Obvious to us, but perhaps explain why this is implied by such a birth.
added
"the size of mandibular foramen" The.
added
"present in them combines aspects of" Present tense again.
fixed
"had short, large fore- and hindlimbs" Short and large?
pretty sure large just means wide. Should I change it?
Large just means big, so wide is more clear. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
"that are likely to be used in swimming," Likely to have been.
fixed
"but the limbs give a slow" Present.
fixed
"that some protocetids had flukes" Tail flukes?
"However, it is clear that they are adapted" Present.
fixed
"Gingerich et al. hypothesized" Date.
added
" similarly to Ambulocetids pelvic paddling supplemented by caudal undulation." Weird grammar.
fixed
"Terrestrial locomotion of Rodhocetus" Needs italics.
added
"in a way similar to how eared seals move on land." Which is how?
added
The titles Early ancestors as opposed to Evolutionary history seems rather odd. The early members are as much cetaceans as the later ones, so it doesn't really make sense. Since this entire article is about the evolutionary history of cetaceans, having a section called "Evolutionary history" makes even less sense. I'd suggest the title there reflecting that it is about the evolution of modern cetacean groups instead. Maybe just call it "evolution of modern cetaceans" or such.
done
"Basilosaurids were discovered in 1840 and initially mistaken for a reptile, hence its name." There are some problems with this sentence. First, why is it important here? Also, the grammar is wrong, and it should refer to Basilosaurus, not the group as a whole. I'd just remove it. You don't mention such details with the other groups.
removed
"Basilosaurids are commonly found in association with dorudontids. In fact, they are closely related to one another." I'd merge these sentence, ending with "and are in fact closely related."
merged
"Basilosauridae and Dorudontinae" The scope is strange here. If dorudontines are just a subgroup of basilosaurids, they should not be mentioned in the title. But you also call them dorudontids in the section, implying they are their own family. So which is it?
fixed
Still need to remove Dorudontinae from the section name, they are a subgroup of Basilosauridae, just like basiloraurines are. So you should start the section like Basilosauridae is divided into the subfamilies basilosaurinae and dorudontinae, which lived together etc." FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
If they are indeed both part of the samew family, sentences such as "The mandibular foramen of basilosaurids and dorudontids" should be shortened to just "basilosaurids".
done
Perhaps mention Whippomorpha somewhere?
done
"A basilosaurid was as big as the larger modern whales, up to 60 ft (18 m) long; dorudontids were smaller, about 15 ft (4.6 m) long." You should mention which genera these lengths are based on.
added
These are genera, not species, so you should write genus instead. FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
"They had a tail fluke," "They too had a fluke" How is this known?
first off, they were fully aquatic, they had to have had tail flukes. Also, I'm pretty sure that the caudal vertebrae expands outwards if you look at it straight up or down
Hmmm, what does the source say? We can't just assume tail flukes were present because they were fully aquatic, otherwise the recently discovered tail flukes of mosasaurs wouldn't have come as a surprise. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
it says "Basilosaurus had a tail fluke..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
"and are certainly not involved in locomotion." Present.
fixed
"according to Fordyce and Barnes," When?
added
Since this is quite a chunk, I'll review the rest of the article when these are done.
Dorudontins should be dorudontines.
fixed


### Evolution of modern cetaceans and below
Since there are still unaddressed issues above, I'll continue with the rest below this line.
Before you go into detail about the two main modern groups, is there nothing to say about what happened between basilosaurs and the later groups? Are the baleen and toothed whales of common origin? When did they split? Etc. I see you mention some of this under toothed whales, but such information should probably be dealt with before the individual sections about each group.
added what happened to the other basilosaurs, and it is stated the dorudontines are the immediate ancestors to the two parvorders.
Thinking a bit further, it seems "Modern evolution" could perhaps be called "ongoing/continued evolution" instead, since "Evolution of modern cetaceans" seems to mean pretty much the same as the current subtitle there.
done
"gulp-feeding with balaenopterids, skim-feeding with balaenids, and bottom plowing with eschrichtiids" I'd say within instead of with.
added
"All modern mysticetes are large filter-feeding or baleen whales" I'd change this to "All modern baleen whales or mysticetes are filter-feeders which have baleen in place of teeth" or some such.
done
"The first members of some modern groups appeared during" What is meant by this? The first baleen whales? If so, just say so.
both groups. Should I change it to "the first members of both groups..."?
Yes. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
done
"Filter feeding is very beneficial as it allows modern baleen whales" Remove modern, I'm sure ancient baleen whales did it too...
done
"modern baleen whales to efficiently gain huge energy resources, which makes the large body size in modern baleen whales" No need to name them twice in the same sentence.
done
"These changes may have been a result of" What changes? Say "the development of filter-feeding" if that is what you mean.
done
"leading to the demise of the archaic forms" Archaic what? Whales or mysticetes?
toothed forms. It's in the baleen whale section so it's talking about baleen whales. Should I change archaic to toothed?
Yes. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
done
Cetoteres should link to Cetotheriidae, not the genus Cetotherium.
done
"Balaenopteridae (rorquals and humpback whale, Megaptera novaengliae), Balaenidae (right whales), Eschrichtiidae (gray whale, Eschrictius robustus), and Neobalaenidae (pygmy right whale, Caperea marginata)" Why are none of these linked?
done
"all have derived characteristics" Link and explain.
done
"the cranium was well compressed" What does "well" mean here?
to make room for the melon
Explain then. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
done
"(a characteristic of the modern toothed whales), giving Squalodon an appearance similar to them." You can't refer to something in parenthesis outside the parenthesis.
fixed
"However, it is thought unlikely that squalodontids are direct ancestors of living dolphins." You haven't mentioned dolphins until this point. You only say Squalodon was similar to modern toothed whales.
fixed
"through their melon" Explain.
it's wikilinked
Words should be linked at first mention, not second. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
So, in parentheses, explain how the melon works?
Oh, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I added "a part of the nose"
"the rostrum telescoped" Explain both.
rostrum is already wikilinked
Most readers won't know what telescoped" means in this context.
changed to "...telescoped outwards into a beak"
"monodontids is Denebola brachycephala" "indicates D. brachycephala's". No need for full binomial.
There's no common name, so I abbreviated the genus name
Then just write the genus name only, unless you have to mention more species in the same genus. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
done
"ancient sperm whales were built to hunt whales." I'm sure not all of them were?
fixed
"Livyatan melvillei, residing along" Only genus is needed.
done
"This mouth was specially adapted for" Its mouth.
fixed
"adapted for eating eobalaenids" Why is this group not dealt with under the section about baleen whales? In general, you go way much more in detail in the section about toothed whales than the one about baleen whales, should be more balanced. Rather than just expanding the baleen whale section, I think the toothed whale section is actually too detailed, and should be trimmed and summarised instead. We need info about general tendencies, not info about when what was discovered, and many details about specific genera.
 Not done just flagging it so I don't forget to do it later
 Done but you might want to check it (I can still trim it a bit more if you want)
I guess it's ok, but you forgot this, which should probably had been its own point *"adapted for eating eobalaenids" Why is this group not dealt with under the section about baleen whales?" FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
That's just a random genus from the Oligocene. In hindsight I probably should've said "baleen whales" or "small whales"
Ah, in that case, you can't say "eobalaenid" about a genus, the "id" part refers to a family, as in Eobalaenidae. FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I should've said "Eobalaenoptera", anyways I removed the mention of that
"preyed upon by killer sperm whales and sharks such as Megalodon as many other species were." Last part is stating the obvious.
removed
"Modern cetaceans have rudimentary hind limbs" You need to mention already here that they are completely internal.
added
"and a pelvic girdle, consisting of an ilium, ischium, and pubis bone." Why is this list needed? It is not unique to whales.
removed
"can be compared to terrestrial mammals." Compared to those of.
removed (I don't know why that was there anyways)
"which is needed for eating and drinking of aquatic animals." "By" instead of "of".
fixed
"were much closer to the top of their head than normal" Than normal for what?
fixed
"led to rebuilding of the skull and food processing equipment" Rebui8lding and equipment seem like odd choices of words.
Their entire anatomy was, in a sense, rebuilt to a point where they are far from recognisable to even their closest cousin the hippo.
Then "reshaping" or some such would be more appropriate.
replaced   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
"Their limbs were compared closely to otters because of the swimming that occurred with their hind legs." This sentence is rather clunky. First, do you mean their limbs are similar/comparable to those of otters? Second, the "swimming that occurred with their legs" should be "because their hindlimbs were used for swimming" or some such.
done
The cladogram in the image at the top of the article implies modern whales evolved from dorudontids. If that is indeed a claim, elaborate on it somewhere, or remove the image.
this is talked about in the Basilosauridae and Dorudontinae section
The second paragraph under Skeletal evolution (about limb development) is extremely detailed, technical and hard for any non-geneticist to read, I'd suggest simplifying it and trimming it heavily, it is in a far different league than all the rest of the text and looks very out of place.
I don't quite know how to simplify genetics
Then just trim it down. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I just explained some of the strange terms but it's still very technical
To be honest, I think all of the following could be cut entirely, it looks like it's straight out of a research paper: "The AER is one of two signaling centers responsible for limb bud outgrowth,[44][45] the other being the zone of polarizing activity (ZPA) located in the posterior mesenchyme of the limb bud.[45] The maintenance of the AER is dependent on signaling from the ZPA, and thus Thewissen proposed that the degeneration of the AER was caused by a dysfunctional ZPA.[45] The ZPA is regulated in part by expression of the Sonic hedgehog (Shh), which in turn is controlled by the upstream expression of the Heart and neural crest derivatives-expressed protein 2 (HAND2) transcription factor.[45] Though HAND2 was found in the forelimb region in Thewissen’s study of Stenella attenuata (pantropical spotted dolphin), it was absent in the hindlimb region. Thus the hindlimb would fail to express Shh and establish a functioning ZPA, which would result in the degeneration of the AER.[44][45] These findings are consistent with the experimental observations of the regression of the hindlimb bud during development, and suggest that the reduction of Shh expression was a gradual evolutionary process.[45]" FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
done
Much better, I think, the essential info is better conveyed without all the fluff. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
"In later species, such as Basilosaurids" That group is not a species, I'd just say "in later taxa".
fixed
"the pelvic bone that was no longer attached to the vertebrae and the ilium" I'd say "the pelvic bone, no longer attached to the vertebrae and the ilium,"
fixed
"Certain genes are believed to be responsible for the changes that occurred to the cetacean pelvic structure. Possible gene candidates for modifications made to the cetacean pelvic girdle include" These two sentences almost say the same and could be merged.
done
"It is thought that, due to the sexual dimorphism displayed, they were involved in" If this is a fact, why do you write it as if it is some kind of unproven theory?
done
"Early archaeocetes such as Pakicetus had the nasal openings at the end of the snout, but in later species such as Rodhocetus, the openings had begun to drift toward the top of the skull. This is known as nasal drift.[48] The nostrils of modern cetaceans have become modified into blowholes that allow them to break to the surface, inhale, and submerge with convenience. The ears began to move inward as well, and, in the case of Basilosaurus, the middle ears began to receive vibrations from the lower jaw. Today's modern toothed whales use the 'melon organ', a pad of fat, for echolocation.[49]" All of this is explained earlier in the article. Not sure what to do about this redundancy.
"Archaeocetes had a heterodont dentition" You only mention this in a caption, if it is important, it should be mentioned in the text as well.
added
But you need to explain what it means as well, and what condition modern whales have. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
done (I think)


### Rest of the article
I'll review the rest when all of the above is dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
What's left?
If you look above, many of the comments are unaddressed, including answers to some of your earlier questions. Whether this means you have fixed the issues in the article and simply not answered there, I don't know, but I can see at least some of the issues are not fixed in the article either. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Now it seems only the Indohyus and duplicate links issues are left, I'll review the rest of the article in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems the Ongoing evolution only focuses on dolphins and close relatives?
Dolphins have a very wide range of motion which allows people to study their psychology, so we can definitively say some dolphin populations have a distinct culture and behavior. The great whales are large, bulky and hard to come by (except minkes) so it is not possible to get definitive answers when studying their psychology and culture. That and almost all don't travel in family groups so they don't have any social bonds
Yes, seems a bit unbalanced though, which leads to the point below, that it should be trimmed down. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
To me, it seems the three sections under Ongoing evolution go way too much into detail considering what the scope of this article actually is. Seems most of the detail would be more relevant at dolphin or similar (maybe even an article about social behaviour in whales), not in an article about evolution of whales in general. I think the sections here should be summarised and trimmed by one third at least, and the full information moved to more relevant articles. But if you think that is too drastic, I can request a second opinion.
In the intro "The evolutionary history of cetaceans is" should be bolded and not have links, since it corresponds to the article title.
If you mean in the lead it is not bolded. Should I remove the links?
Yes, and bold it, you link those word again later in the lead anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
"to have occurred in India from" I'd rather say the Indian sub-continent, the country of course didn't exist then.
fixed
", however a jawbone discovered in Antarctica may reduce this to 5 million years" This should be moved to the article body, too much detail for the intro, and there should never be unique info in the intro.
moved
You state the same info twice in the intro: "is thought to have occurred in India from even-toed ungulates 50 million years ago," and "order Artiodactyla, and branched off from other artiodactyls around 50 mya (million years ago)" First occurrence should be cut.
The first time is in the lead, and the lead is meant to summarize the entire article
Both those quotes are from the intro/lead alone. Should only be stated once there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
", and branched off from other artiodactyls" which branched off.
"Being mammals,... they have bones in their fins" Why is this significant? Fish have bones in their fins as well.
fixed
"their skeletal anatomy is more similar to terrestrial mammals than to fish." That should be obvious, I don't see why you need to mention fish here, rather than just saying they are skeletally similar to other mammals.
Despite being fully aquatic like fish they have a skeleton much more similar to terrestrial mammals; their aquatic lifestyle didn't change too much of their mammalian ancestry
I'd rather say something like "despite their fully aquatic life style, they retained many skeletal features from their terrestrial, mammalian ancestors." FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replaced
"These mammalian characteristics all point to their terrestrial origin, as well as the fact that they are mammals" The latter point is stating the obvious. Fish are not the only animals in the ocean, and whales hardly look like them at all.
All mammals came from land, so even the fact that they are mammals points to their terrestrial origin. Should I just get rid of that?
I just replaced it with "the first mammals were terrestrial, so cetaceans, being mammals, must have come from the land"
"ago in a second cetacean radiation" Only stated as such in the intro.
added to the Toothed whale section
"with earlier varieties like Janjucetus having very little baleen" Move this to the article body.
In the Baleen whale section, it says "...leading to the demise of toothed forms". Should I just expand on this?
The problem is you don't mention that genus outside the intro. So yes, could be expanded and mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
done
"and their size is linked to baleen dependence." You state filter-feeding specifically in the article body.
Baleen dependence and filter-feeding are the same thing basically
Yes, but you can't expect that the layreader will know this. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
added "...and their size is linked to baleen dependence (and subsequent increase in filter feeding)"
"Modern-day cetaceans' evolution" Why do you need the genitive '?
Possessive apostrophe
You can just say "Modern-day cetacean evolution." FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
replaced
Since the main subject of this article is the actual skeletal and behavioural evolution of whales over millions of years, I'm surprised you almost skip the "early evolution" entirely in the intro, instead devoting a huge paragraph to the much less significant recent social behaviour. Seems unbalanced.
@FunkMonk:, @Dunkleosteus77: Everything OK here? Asking out of curiosity because there has been no activity for over a week. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I think Dunkleosteus said somewhere else he had been sick. But now you're here, might weigh in on the issue of whether the last three sections are too detailed and off-topic for the scope of this article? FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I see. Sorry, the red imported fire ant has been my prime focus at the moment and I forgot to actually respond. In regards to your question, it definitely is bloated and in some places too detailed. I think the paragraphs discussing the experiments could be cut back greatly and just give a shorter summary of the results perhaps? Burklemore1 (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The Early evolution and evolution of modern cetaceans sections deal with macro-evolution, but the Culture and Social structure sections deal with micro-evolution (in certain populations).  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It is still very specific to some groups and very long, compared to the earlier sections which deal with the entire group, much more important issues, and much more time, but in comparatively less space. FunkMonk (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
If you're referring to the spongers thing, that's the most famous example of culture exhibited in cetaceans, and there has been a lot of research done by many studies (which makes it much easier to write :). As to the 'less space' comment, Early evolution takes up a good portion of the article. Also, the culture section is roughly the size of the toothed whale section.  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I mean all the sections. Since we have two editors already who think it goes into too much detail, I'll have to list this for a second opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Request for second opinion. The editors at this assessment have been very diligent. My assumption is that this request for a second opinion is asking about the very end of the article and the sections on "Culture, Social Structure and Environmental Factors," and whether these are too detailed and too expansive. In this short form, one needs to affirm that they are very detailed, and also there is the question of whether the subject of general evolutionary pressures on general evolutionary development is properly taken up in an article dealing with the specific issues of Cetaceans. The topic of evolutionary pressures on evolutionary development is much broader than just those three topics ("Culture, Social Structure and Environmental Factors"), and its not clear if the editors of this article are just giving some examples of three possible factors influencing where evolutionary development might be expected to take place. If that is the case, then some consideration should be given to just give a short list of representative examples as long as they are properly sourced. Otherwise, the general topic (Evolutionary trends) appears much too broad to take up in a relatively specialized article on the history of the evolution of Cetaceans. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Fountains-of-Paris. This review has resolved a lot of issues, the only trouble is with the length of the last section. While it explores a lot of experiments, I think these can be shortened. Parts such as As another example, some bottlenose dolphins... may be excluded so that we can have all the points we wish to make, each with a single short example. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 06:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I've trimmed the culture section back a bit   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I do not feel the length is very troublesome now, and the information does appear interesting to me. Burklemore1, FunkMonk, Fountains-of-Paris: mind having another look? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 02:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
It has definitely improved, though I wouldn't mind seeing what others think first before promotion. There may be a few instances where it is slightly bloated, but it is not major at this point. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Can we hear where FunkMonk is on this. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, I'll be back soon with the last comments. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


### Last comments
The ongoing evolution text still reads like arbitrarily chosen studies about certain dolphins, when there would probably be a similar amount of info for most other species as well. But I'll accept it, since the second opinions express satisfaction with the current text.
"Whether or not a dolphin uses a tool affects their eating behavior" Why does it go form singular to plural?
I don't see any plural. "affects" is progressive and "eating behavior" is singular
"Their" is plural. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
"change within the dolphins of a population" You mean individual dolphins?
yes
"in the long run" Too informal, long term might be better.
long term refers to how long something will be in effect, long run refers to things occurring over a long period of time
I don't think it's always that specific.[7] FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
"as shown in studies showing dolphins" Repetetive.
changed to "as concluded in studies..."
"Spongers put sponges on their noses" What sponges? Sea sponges? Also "noses" seems a rather inaccurate term for the snout of a dolphin, which is not where the nostrils are located.
changed to "...put sea sponges on their snout" and wikilinked sea sponge
"this tool use is considered a culture." A tool itself cannot be a culture. Use of it can be cultural.
changed to "...a cultural trait"
"found the fatty acid analyses" Of what?
reworded
"had very different fatty acid analyses" I doubt the dolphins themselves had analyses, it would rather be the results of the analyses.
changed to "...fatty acid results"
"even though they are in the habitat is the same." Not sure what this means.
changed to "in the same habitat"
"thus allowing evolution to act on this culture." Evolution doesn't "act", it would rather be evolution resulting from the cultural behaviour.
changed to "...allowing this culture to evolve"
"Social structure forms groups that interact with one another" This reads oddly, I guess you mean social behaviour results in groups that interact with other groups?
changed to "...forms groups with individuals that..."
"this allows for cultural traits to emerge, flow, and evolve." I guess you mean exchange?
replaced
"dolphin populations in southwestern Australia, who have been known" Which have been known.
replaced
"This begging behavior spread through" I'd say was spread or has spread.
fixed
"and it was revealed was that the origin of the species" Something wrong.
fixed
"outcome of natural mixing between two different species" Why don't you just say hybridization? "Mixing" sounds very informal and non-scientific.
replaced
"Relationships between these three species had been wondered according to" Not sure what this means.
changed to "...had been speculated..."
"resulting in regarding the former as subspecies" Resulting in the former being regarded as.
replaced
"that the Yangtze River dolphin, or "baiji" (Lipotes vexillifer), lacks single nucleotide polymorphisms in their genome." You make it seem like this species still exists, though it is considered extinct.
it is ranked as critically endangered by the IUCN
"proving again of their differentiation" Proving of? Doesn't seem like correct English.
removed
"Two endemic, distinctive types of pilot whale, Tappanaga (or Shiogondou) the larger, northern type and Magondou the smaller" It seems highly unlikely that small populations of pilot whales will ever get their own articles in the English Wikipedia, so I don't see a need for red links here. Furthermore, this article is supposed to be general, so we don't even need to know the local names for these populations.
I think it would get kind of confusing if I just kept referred to them as "the bigger one" or "the smaller one"
The red links are not needed in any case. These populations hardly warrant articles. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
sorry, I got confused; removed
"Some indicate" Wording as vague as this should never be used.
changed to "it is thought that..."
"in a second cetacean radiation, the first belonging to the archaeocetes." A radiation does not "belong" to a group.
changed to "...occurring with..."
"with earlier varieties like Janjucetus having very little baleen" In the article body you name several genera, so no need to mention this specific genus in the intro; you name no other genus in the intro, so it seems highly arbitrary.
removed
"Modern-day cetacean evolution is largely affected by their local culture and social network. Tool-use for foraging in certain societies affects their diet, and allows them to access more varieties of food." I'd remove "their", we're talking about whole population and taxa here, not individuals.
replaced
I still think there is way too much unnecessary detail in the last paragraph of the intro. You don't go into this much detail about much more important/relevant subjects of the article.
trimmed
And that should be it! FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: is there anything else left?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, in my last edits, I added some comments after some of your answers above that need to be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to come so late, I was wondering why there is no mention of the evolution of dolphins and porpoises in the toothed whale subsection. LittleJerry (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
added a sentence about each. The line is kind of funny between whale and dolphin and not much is known about porpoise evolution (as far as I know)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
One recently described weirdo is the "skimmer porpoise", Semirostrum. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I think this is there now, so will pass it, thanks, all! FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The intro section ends with the sentence: 'Social bonds between different species can sometimes cause interbreeding, which always results in infertile hybrids when it occurs.'
There is no added citation to support this claim.
However, another Wiki article on the 'Wholphin' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholphin mentions the female offspring of a bottlenose dolphin and false killer whale that proved to be fertile on several occasions. The statements attesting to this are well cited. 
RobotBoy66 (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, RobotBoy66; as the section on social structure-driven ongoing evolution demonstrates, hybridization wiht fertile offspring is by no means unknown in cetaceans. I don't know what that claim was doing there. Removed. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Are they fully aquatic because they don't have to go to land to calf?  Does the fact that they have to surface to breathe air not count?  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

First question yes, obviously, and second question, no, considering as how no obligately aquatic amniote tetrapod has ever been able to dispense with air-breathing.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Protocetus BW.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)