[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> oxyaenids are not hooved; hyaenodonts are not hooved; pangolins are   
   >> not hooved; and pantolestids are not hooved.) The consensus date for   
   >> Ferae is 65 million years ago. Wikipedia gives a date for 73-85   
   >> million years for Scrotifera, but the relevant nodes, depending on   
   >> topology, are Zooamata or Ferungulata, which are younger.   
   >>   
   >> As support for hooves as a convergent trait, not all mesonychians   
   >> (which are stem artiodactyls) possessed hooves. However there is   
   >> dispute whether the hoofless mesonychians (arctocyonids) are stem-   
   >> artiodactyls.   
   >   
   > It's also the case that not all (or any??) stem-perissodactyls are   
   > hooved, and even some crown-perissodactyls aren't (chalicotheres). I'd   
   > say that convergence in hoofiness is considerably more parsimonious   
   > given the data, even forgetting about Dollo's Law.   
   >   
      
   If they needed to wait to find the dino mummies before they could   
   determine that dinos had hooves what is the fossil evidence that these   
   lineages started with claws instead of hooves?  Are they just going by   
   reduction in toes or no reduction in toes?  Even feet with no reduction   
   in toes to form some existing hoof morphologies can still have hooves.   
   The dinos demonstrate that.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   R   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)