[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>> years ago, and that is around 30 million years after that common   
   >>>>> ancestor's lineage split off from the horse lineage.  Plenty of   
   >>>>> time to reevolve claws.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The relevant clawed clade is Ferae, not Carnivora. (To the best of   
   >>>> my knowledge miacids are not hooved; viverravids are not hooved;   
   >>>> 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?   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Except no one noticed in centuries.   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   Pakecetus has normal looking toes, but they claim that it had claw like   
   hooves because it has the artiodactyl ankle.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)