[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> 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?   
      
   Well, first of all, they didn't need to wait. The bones, specifically   
   the unguals, are all the evidence needed.   
      
   > Are they just going by   
   > reduction in toes or no reduction in toes?   
      
   No. It's the shape of the unguals.   
      
   > Even feet with no reduction   
   > in toes to form some existing hoof morphologies can still have hooves.   
   > The dinos demonstrate that.   
      
   True, though the dinosaurs in question actually do have reduced numbers   
   of toes. But this isn't about the number of toes. Again, the form of the   
   unguals is the evidence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)