[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>  > they were weasel like ancestral carnivores, so my guess is   
   >>>>>>>> that they   
   >>>>>>>>  > could have reevolved claws to be more arboreal.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Where do you get this figure of 30 million years?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The common ancestor of extant carnivores existed around 55   
   >>>>>>> million 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.   
   >   
   > This is just not true. These mummies are merely direct confirmation of   
   > what we've known for years, with added, typical Nature-bait hype.   
      
   Except, I can't recall it ever being mentioned on TO before.   
      
   >   
   >>>> 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?   
   >   
   It is just what was claimed in the article that I read.  Pakecetus was   
   claimed to likely have had claw like hooves because it had the   
   artiodactyl ankle of other hooved animals.  The Wiki doesn't even   
   mention hooves on it's toes.  The skeleton just has normal looking toes.   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)