Talk:Pakicetus

Images show different animals

I've read several articles stating that the oldest ancestor of whales was a deer-like, hoofed animal called Indohyus. This articles shows two images in the main text (left side of the screen) that portray VERY different animals.

The photo of the skeleton shows an animal with 4 toes on each foot. The drawing of the partial skeleton shows a hoofed animal. Nevertheless, both are called Pakicetus.

This seems very strange to me.

82.171.59.193 (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Hans Dirkse82.171.59.193 (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC) hansdirkse@gmail.com

If by "deer-like," you mean "mouse-deer" or "chevrotain," then, yes, Indohyus would have vaguely looked like a long-tailed mouse-deer or chevrotain with a disproportionally large head. If by "deer-like," you mean like Bambi, then no, that's not what's meant.

Having said that, are you aware that Pakicetus is a different animal from Indohyus? Or that you can still have toes when you have hooves? I mean, what is your point?--Mr Fink (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hans Thewissen Bio

I am writing a bio. Give me til Dec 31 2018 --Akrasia25 (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Images

I am going to delete the "skull of P. inachus, at Natural History Museum, London" this reconstruction is terrible, it was based on a braincase only before the skull was found, so the entire snout had to be made up, the eyes are totally wrong, and so is the nose opening. I will add a better more recent photo.--Akrasia25 (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to remove the photo from the article, as per your specifications.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

“however, given their close relationships with hippos, they more likely had sparse body hair.[2]“

Pakicetus isn’t particularly closely related to hippopotamids much beside sharing the same suborder (Whippomorpha). The assumption that they were hairless based on another derived animal which, in its suborder, it isn’t particularly closely related to is not a strong one, and probably shouldn’t be in the article. It’s also notable that many aquatic mammals do retain fur in significant capacity: notably many members of Pinnipedia and Lutrinae. Wikitherium (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Source [2]

I can’t seem to access the source, I’m not sure if anyone else has encountered this issue but I thought it should be raised. Wikitherium (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wikitherium: I have no problem reading the source in the US. --Akrasia25 (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

sorry wrong reference. Let me check --Akrasia25 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wikitherium: ok, should be fixed now. --Akrasia25 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Skeleton

Is the skeleton in the infobox composed of the actual fossil bones or is it a provisional restoration based on available fossil material? Эйхер (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The information given says it's a cast of fossil bones, so probably the latter.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I meant whether it is entirely composed of faithful representations of actual fossilized paikicetus bones or it is an artwork made around some actual bones (or their copies)? Does this model represent how a real pakicetus skeleton looks or how a particular scientist believes it might look? For a layman like me it defenitely looks quite aquatic. Эйхер (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Unless you have suspicions that the skeleton is inaccurate, this is a question better posed to the museum that currently houses the skeleton.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Further in the article paikicetus is depicted as a normal terrestrial ungulate animal. I'm not a biologist, but what I see in the skeleton is quite different. I've hard time to belive that this isn't a skeleton of an aquatic animal (like an otter for example). Intuitively, one who is foreign to paleontology understands that pictures of living animals who died millions years ago all are artwork, but assumes that skeletons in museums are the actual fossil evidence. At least some museums practice painting with bright colours parts of the skeletons that are provisional restorations made to complement original fossil bones. I belive, the discord between the skeleton and the life restoration puzzles a lot of readers, not just me. By the way, I believe I've seen a paper, written by Philip Gingerich around 2010 or so, where he insists that new fossil material supports semi-aquatic nature of pakicetus. Эйхер (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority...

The vast majority of paleontologists regard it as the most basal whale

Really? Are there paleontologists who do not regard it as the most basal whale? What do they then think it is? Not yet a whale? Or a species totally unrelated to whales? Or a whale but not the most basal? Эйхер (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It belongs to the even-toed ungulates with the closest living relative being the hippopotamus.

Hippo may be a relative to pakicetus, but if it is a whale than, by definition, it's closest living relatives are extant whales. Эйхер (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Low importance?

This animal is the first cetacean and has like 13,000 page views a day, about twice as many as the high importance article Paleoloxodon. Additionally, it is very important for the evolution of cetaceans. Shouldn't this be high importance, not low importance?Also, the importance classification level was decided in 2010, 15 years ago. Mongoliensis123 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

As soon as the article is expanded further, certainly. Mr Fink (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn't the importance not be dependent on article quality though? There can be a very high importance article which is also stub/start class. Mongoliensis123 (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)