Talk:Evolution of cetaceans

message: "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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposal to remove references section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  sizes 

message: An anonymous user has considerably altered the pakicetid section to suggest that the evidence for pakicetus as a proto-whale has been overstated . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Creationist website and pakicetid evidence questioning

message: 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)
thread_title: Category

message: 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)
replies: text: See the Indohyus article here. Lighthead þ 02:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indohyus?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protungulatum and Chriacus? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Small brain equals solitary existence?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This article is very confusing. 

message: ... of the alleged intermediate fossils within the evolution form land mammals to cetaceans? --41.135.17.23 (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why not place the pictures of the actual bones found...? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Major Editing

message: 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)
thread_title:  graphical timeline 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion on title of taxon evolution pages 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good catch, ; 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)
thread_title:  Minor Contradiction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "fully aquatic" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion