[VadeRetro]

That's actually a pretty important fossil. We already had good skulls on Pakicetus, but until the 1990s we didn't know anything about what it looked like past the head. That's the fossil that showed it to have no obvious aquatic adaptations--we'd thought it might look more like a big otter--and to be an even-toed hoofed animal (artiodactyl) related to pigs, camels, sheep, deer, etc. We already had another line of evidence (DNA) which said modern whales are more related to that mammal group than to any other, so whaddaya know?

You actually are offering that as a classic example of a useless pile of bones? I shake my head.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I think the reason it showed up in the platypus thread is because of the surprise that another unlikely ear development has been found to have occurred twice, which throws doubt on the relevance of this note:

"However, the skulls of pakicetids have an ear region that is highly unusual in shape, and only resembles that of modern and fossil whales. These features are diagnostic for cetaceans, they are found in all cetaceans, and in no other animals. These features are main why pakicetids are considered whales."
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/

Besides, those bodies have very little of the heads on which to make a match. And that this is the next closest "relative" makes me shake my head. At least the ears are similar.



Yes, I know. Everything is a branch. Nothing is a direct line.