[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> The whole problem with these claims is that they did not know that the   
   >> dinos had hooves until they found the mummies.   
   >   
   > Not true. What makes you think that?   
      
   Because that was the claim.  When has anyone claimed that some dinos had   
   hooves before this study?  I can't recall any such claims.   
      
   >   
   >> They had been assuming claws for centuries.  How do you know that the   
   >> mammalian taxa had claws instead of hooves?  Even the ancient dino   
   >> footprints did not differentiate claws from hooves.   
   >   
   > I think you're confusing some different taxa of dinosaurs here.   
   >   
      
   They have claimed to have identified duck billed dino tracks for quite a   
   while, and no one noticed that they had hooved toes.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)