Talk:Ambulocetus

Article deficiencies

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2014

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: -----> Science, January 14, 1994

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

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)

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)

References

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)

Whale fins are modified legs (and do look like small legs without the flesh), so I don't find it strange. But I'd have to read more on this animal to confirm if the material is due. —PaleoNeonate – 02:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Among other things, desmostylians had legs not modified into fins, and are still thought to have been wholly aquatic.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Even so are there any animals alive today have legs but never go onto land?Dinoboyaz (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Most species are extinct. If looking at evolution of cetaceans, there obviously was a moment of transition somewhere, including marine mammals with what could still argued to be feet... —PaleoNeonate – 01:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about you but it makes no sense so to me it does matter. Name on air-breathing animal with legs that doesn't go on land alive today and I'll change my mind.Dinoboyaz (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Would it be at all possible if you could read the paper first?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It called a vestigial body part and is present everywhere. Why do humans have tailbones, male nipples, goosebumps, wisdom teeth, a third eyelid, grasp reflex or visible parts of our ears? Just because an organism doesn't need something doesn't mean that natural selection has worked the part away. It is one proof for evolution rather than for a grand designer who made all these imperfect organisms.--Akrasia25 (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't assume that Dinoboyaz held anti-evolution views, but if that is the case, I strongly recommend evidence of common descent and Talk:Evolution/FAQ (and sorry if that's not the case). —PaleoNeonate – 04:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ambulocetus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 21:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• The use of is in the current sentence just feels really off to me. Either say that it is a genus, or say that it was an early amphibious cetacean, as it's highly extinct.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• " Ambulocetus is thought to have swum much like a modern river otters" - Drop the "a"

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Discovery

• What year were the remains first unearthed in?

I think he discovered an announced it the same year (1994)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• " the only evidence of this in the fossil record was the 52-million-year-old (fully terrestrial) Pakicetus" - Now, I could be wrong on this, because my paleontology knowledge mostly comes from books I bought at a library discard sale, and these are from the 1990s, but isn't Pakicetus at least thought by some to have been semiaquatic to some extent? Out Pakicetus article calls it amphibious, which I'm not really convinced is the greatest assessment of scholarly consensus, but I'm not sure if fully terrestrial is the best summary of Pakicetus opinions, either.

It's generally regarded as terrestrial, but of course it is an extinct whale and we don't know everything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Head

• Hypoglossal canal is overlinked

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The end of the snout of Ambulocetus is missing," - Not wild about this phrasing. Obviously, this is based on the holotype, and Ambulocetus was more than just the holotype before its extinction, so it's not great phrasing to project the holotype onto all individuals here

changed to "of the holotype"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link Rodhocetus, or at least gloss what type of critter it was.

like Basilosaurus it was another archaeocete   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Vertebrae

• "The holotype preserved 7 neck vertebrae" - MOS:NUMERALS

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The holotype preserved 7 neck vertebrae" - It's unclear if you're meaning here that that it probably only had seven, or if only seven were recovered, and there's no telling how many there truly were.
• With the lumbar and sacral vertebrae, it seems implied that it is known how many of those it had. Is that assumption correct?

I'm not sure so I like to leave these numbers sort of vague. I'd assume that those series are completely preserved because I don't see an indication that they're not   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The cortical bone (the outermost layer) is thickest at the neck of the rib (between the joint and the costal cartilage), at max 1 mm (0.039 in), and are filled with spongy bone" - The subject of are appears to be the cortical bone, which is the wrong case for are, as it is singular. I'm also not convinced that the present tense is great here, as the spongy bone has since been fossilized, and is no longer really spongy bone.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Only 5 of the tail vertebrae are preserved" - MOS:NUMERALS

done

Limbs

• "The hand had 5 widely spaced digits" - MOS:NUMERALS

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The fifth digit slightly shorter much less robust than the fourth" - This sentence lacks a verb

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Diet

• "nd the fact that both the premolars and molars were both involved in crushing indicates" - Can you find a way to rephrase this so that both doesn't pop up twice?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• "drowning it or trashing it around" - Would you possibly mean thrashing, not trashing?

yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

See also

• I'm unconvinced that the Ice Hunt link really brings anything here, especially since the linked information about Ice Hunt doesn't mention Ambulocetus

Ambulocetus is very central to the plot   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• All look reliable, and the formatting is acceptable. There's a lot of Thewissen in there, but it's unavoidable, because he was involved in the discovery of the fossil matter for this species. It's perfectly fine at this level, given the circumstances, but an FAC may challenge it.

Thewissen is almost always involved when it comes to Ambulocetus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Image licensing is acceptable. Placing on hold. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: is there anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Fossil Range Error

Hey, somebody needs to fix the Fossil Range in the Taxobox. It says that Ambulocetus lived in the Cretaceous Period. Yet, it lived during in the Eocene epoch, around 49 to 48 million years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealLTG (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done For now at least. Someone keeps messing with the date and that resets the box. Thanks for noticing. --Akrasia25 (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hooves?

If ambulocetus belongs in the order, Artiodactyla, then this placement should be based on preserved limb morphology resembling hooves or other shared morphological features with other Eocene artiodactyla. The skeleton illustration provided does not appear show the evidence (at least to me) of hooves or other anatomical features found in other early artiodactyla. A topic in this article explaining the classification of the genus ambulocetus under Artiodactyla would clear up any confusion. Be sure to find primary sources discussing the reasoning behind the taxonomy of this species.Rigognos Molinarios (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hooves is not a diagnostic feature of the order. Whales are artiodactyls despite having no hooves   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A diagnostic feature of artiodactyls is the "astralagus pulley," which Ambulocetus and other primitive artiodactyls have.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

TFA

Ambulocetus

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 3, 2021 by Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Reconstructed skeleton

Ambulocetus natans is a species of early amphibious archaeocete cetacean from the Early Eocene Kuldana Formation in Pakistan, 48 or 47 million years ago. It is among the most completely known Eocene cetaceans, vital to the study of cetacean evolution and the transition from land to sea. Ambulocetus probably had a long, broad, and powerful snout, and eyes near the top of the head. It may have hunted like a crocodile, waiting near the water's surface and ambushing large mammals, using the jaws to clamp onto and drown or thrash prey. It may have swum like a river otter, alternating beats of the hind limbs while keeping the forelimbs tucked in for most of its propulsive power, simultaneously undulating the torso and tail. It had four functional limbs and may have walked much like a sea lion. It possibly had webbed feet and lacked a tail fluke. It lived in a hot, coastal swamp probably in a river mouth. (Full article...)

• Most recent similar article(s): Steller's sea cow September 2, 2017
• Main editors:   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
• Promoted: April 26, 2021
• Reasons for nomination: I believe this is only the 3rd extinct marine mammal to get to FA (along with Livyatan and Steller's sea cow), and is certainly the first marine mammal article to get to FA in quite some time
• Support as nominator.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  07:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, are we allowed to break up text into paragraphs in TFA blurbs? Panini!^🥪 11:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Great article. Very TFA-worthy. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Why probably?

"Ambulocetus probably had a long, broad, and powerful snout, and eyes near the top of the head."

I thought that the scull has been preserved sufficiently well to know such things without "probably". Hasn't it? Эйхер (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

In the body of the article: "The snout was quite broad, but the end of the holotype's snout is missing, so it is unclear how long it would have been." —PaleoNeonate – 11:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Well. But the eyeholes weren't at the end of the snout? Эйхер (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)