Talk:Ambulocetus: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:42, 20 June 2019

Cetaceans Start‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mammals Start‑class Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Start‑class Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article deficiencies

When the ambulocetus lived? How many million years ago exactly? Verdi1 18:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wiki's Cetecean Evolution article, its ancestor species lived 52 millions years ago, and its successor 45 millions years ago. So sometimes between those dates - split the difference and say 48.5 million years ago ;) . Doctor Atomic 05:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater hearing

“Ambulocetus did not have external ears. To detect prey on land and in the water, they may have lowered their heads to the ground and felt for vibrations.”

“…and it [ambulocetus] shared ear structure with whales, enabling it to hear well underwater”

Don’t these two statements contradict to each other? Verdi1 18:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the first statement to "To detect prey on land, they may have lowered their heads to the ground and felt for vibrations." Ambulocetus did lack external ears, instead it had a fatty hollow in its jaw that picked up vibrations, just like whales. Unless living whales routinely lower their heads to the seafloor in order to hear, the original statement is not accurate. 71.217.114.221 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration that's adapted from the Nov. 2001 issue of National Geographic shows it incorrectly with ears then. Maybe the picture should be removed. 69.226.74.4 02:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Thewissen

Is he really an anthropologist? Beside he dug out remains of ancient whale, he has too many publications on evolution of whales (not humans)? Who is that Mr. Thewissen at all? What is his nationality; in what year he dug out ambulocetus? Without all these the article seems incomplete. Verdi1 18:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He may be listed as an anthropologist by mistake--I often hear people say that archaeologists are the ones who dig up dinosaur fossils, it seems that people regularly get their ancient sciences confused, or simply don't know that there is a branch of science dedicated to extinct animals (whenever I mention paleontology to someone, their eyes go all glassy like I've just started speaking a foreign language). I really don't think the man's nationality has any bearing on the subject at hand, however. 71.217.114.221 03:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am making a wiki page on this Dutch Paleontologist. It has just started today in my sandbox and very rough. --Akrasia25 (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Completed bio JGM "Hans" Thewissen--Akrasia25 (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Habitat preferences

So this animal is known to have tolerated both fresh and saline water, and its fossils were discovered in what used to be a coastal area. Could it be that Ambulocetus lived in an estuarine environment? 71.217.114.221 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fossils found

How many fossils were found? Exactly which bones were found? Please include this information or point me to where I can find it. Thank you. --Frankypenner 14:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is a great summary of conclusions but does not present enough findings, facts, or where to find them.

The link at the bottom of the page needs fixing: it is the one that shows a photo with the set of bones found --> http://www3.neomed.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/whales/Ambulocet.html DrDaveExeter (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for pointing it out. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fossils found part 2

The fossils that were found are quite inconclusive and the article is based on supposition and artists impressions. The following link will show what fossils were actually discovered. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.29.72 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lie. The specimen, as of 2001, is reasonably complete and includes the whole pelvis. Answers in Genesis is just doing doing what it typically does: spreading misinformation. Here's the truth: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie030.html 68.43.29.125 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The article is a bit small to support two images. I suggest we pick just one. Which is better? Evercat (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reach your conclusions?

"it was clearly amphibious, as its back legs are better adapted for swimming than for walking on land, and it probably swam by undulating its back vertically, as otters and whales do" - How is it that the back legs were better adapted for swimming? Please provide some detail. If this is the view of the discoverer of this species, perhaps you can attribute it to him instead of stating it as a matter-of-fact.

The assumption that this creature swam like a whale or otter seems to be from a desire to establish this animal as a precursor to whales. How do we know it didn't swim like a dog, horse or hippo? If there is more detail to reinforce your assumption, please share it. Otherwise, it might be better to steer clear of such speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.15.206 (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At its size, its legs look quite capable of walking on land with its chest and belly off the ground. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

There has been limited fossil evidence for this species. See Diagram: http://www.foolishfaith.com/images/chap3_fossils_pic.gif

I know the website's topic is a bit controversial, but we must ignore the any bias here at wikipedia and just look at facts and findings. This page gives the impressions that there has been accurate fossil finds to this transitional species but many sources I have found says there is not. PLEASE, try and find any newer source (as mine is a bit old) of a fossil find for the Ambulocetus so we can say so with accurate proof.

Source: ^[1] -----> Science, January 14, 1994

61.230.174.106 (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, it's not that Wikipedia ignores bias, it's that editors at Wikipedia should ignore sources with a vested interest in spreading misinformation on particular topics, such as all Creationist sites that lie about how fossil whale skeletons are allegedly too incomplete to be informative about whale evolution. Plus, this paper shoots a hole in foolishfaith.com's claim.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_fossils.asp

I don’t buy it

The recent discovery that Ambulocetus was fully aquatic, I don’t buy it: what’s the point of having legs of you’re an air-breather and can’t go onto land?! Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_fossils.asp

[1]

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 {{reflist-talk}}
+==  I don’t buy it ==
+The recent discovery that ''Ambulocetus'' was fully aquatic, I don’t buy it: what’s the point of having legs of you’re an air-breather and can’t go onto land?! [[User:Dinoboyaz|Dinoboyaz]] ([[User talk:Dinoboyaz|talk]]) 22:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)