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)


 * ✅, 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)
 * ✅, 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)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg 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)

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.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 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...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 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). — Paleo Neonate  – 04:13, 30 June 2019 (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.
 * ✅ 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 &#124;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)

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." — Paleo  Neonate  – 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)