Talk:Ambulocetus

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)

“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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)