[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>> 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.   
      
   This is just not true. These mummies are merely direct confirmation of   
   what we've known for years, with added, typical Nature-bait hype.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   That's silly. The ankle isn't connected to the toes. Or are you making   
   an intrinsically phylogenetic claim?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)