OT: Procetus Fossil

[sharon1...@yahoo.com]

I'm searching for an image (scientific sketch or photograph / both is
better) of Procetus, the early whale. Google images comes up dry, have
searched through early whale sites (Gingerich and Thewissen), didn't
find Procetus, and searched some books on paleontology, no images.

Any online journals that might have Procetus, or information where the
skeleton has been published and back-order available?

[Mike]

There's a page here about the evolution of whales-

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html

The links beneath have more information and some pictures. There's
actually no mention of 'procetus' but there is a mention of a
'Pakicetus inachus', is this what you were looking for?

[sharon1...@yahoo.com]

amazon.com seemed to have one reference to procetus in its search
On Growth and Form (Canto) (Paperback)
by Stephen J. Gould (Foreword), D'Arcy Thompson (Author), J. T. Bonner
(Editor)

No books available with images.

[Mike]

Ah, there is a reconstruction of what it might look like here
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/ a little more
than halfway down. It says that only a skull and vertibrae have been
found.

[Windy]

Maybe you want Protocetus?

-- w.

[sharon1...@yahoo.com]

Mike wrote:

> There's a page here about the evolution of whales-
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
>
> The links beneath have more information and some pictures. There's
> actually no mention of 'procetus' but there is a mention of a
> 'Pakicetus inachus', is this what you were looking for?

Thanks. but not Pakicetus, not protocetid (as on Gingerich's page), but
"Procetus".

It's obscure. Only skull and some vertebrae exist of it.

[sharon1...@yahoo.com]

Procetus. It's an obscure early whale listed on pp. 66-67, National
Geographic, Nov. 2001.
It's pictured as a full sized whale, but actually only a skull and some
vertebrae were ever recovered.

[sharon1...@yahoo.com]

Yes, I'm trying to find the actual skeleton to illustrate it in detail.

A particular creationist was ridiculing evolution for calling
Rodhocetus an early whale, and only illustrated the skeleton Gingerich
published, which appeared as a lumbering land animal, but
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm shows
Rodhocetus as a proficient swimmer.

I'm wanting the actual skeleton of Procetus, to understand why
scientists would class this fossil among early whales.

[Windy]

sharon1...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Windy wrote:
> > > I'm searching for an image (scientific sketch or photograph / both is
> > > better) of Procetus, the early whale. Google images comes up dry, have
> > > searched through early whale sites (Gingerich and Thewissen), didn't
> > > find Procetus, and searched some books on paleontology, no images.
> > >
> > > Any online journals that might have Procetus, or information where the
> > > skeleton has been published and back-order available?
> >
> > Maybe you want Protocetus?
>

> Procetus. It's an obscure early whale listed on pp. 66-67, National
> Geographic, Nov. 2001.
> It's pictured as a full sized whale, but actually only a skull and some
> vertebrae were ever recovered.

The same NatGeo illustration is behind the link Mike gave. The web page
seems to mix up the two names:

"National Geographic's artist has given an imaginative reconstruction
for what Procetus may have looked like. Unfortunately, very little is
actually known about Protocetus, no limbs, no tail, no lower jaw, just
a skull and vertebrae."

Maybe it's worth checking out Protocetus as well, could be a common
typo? :)

-- w.

[Mike]

Youd probably have to check out the article in National Geographic for
that.

I'm not really qualified to say but I imagine that it's qualified as a
whale because of the general shape of the skull, position of the
nose/blowhole and position of the ears.

[sharon1...@yahoo.com]

oops. you are right.

If anyone on this newsgroup knows what the difference is between
"Protocetus" and "Procetus" (if there is any), please tell.

[sharon1...@yahoo.com]

sounds very good for a start. will pass your comments along. thanks!

[Craig T]

I found a list of Mammalian genera that lists both procetus and
protocetus. It doesn't say a thing about either genus, but that does
imply they are not the same thing.

http://strata.ummp.lsa.umich.edu/jack/showgenera.php?taxon=682&rank=class

Searches for Procetus mostly come up with creationist pages. It may
take a while to wade through all that to find any science.

[sharon1...@yahoo.com]

Craig T wrote:
>
> I found a list of Mammalian genera that lists both procetus and
> protocetus. It doesn't say a thing about either genus, but that does
> imply they are not the same thing.
>
> http://strata.ummp.lsa.umich.edu/jack/showgenera.php?taxon=682&rank=class
>
> Searches for Procetus mostly come up with creationist pages. It may
> take a while to wade through all that to find any science.

Thanks for the link.
Paleo Database also provides similar information. So I believe you're
right. Protocetus and Procetus, must be different.

Under Classification of the Cetacea
http://flatpebble.nceas.ucsb.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=startProcessPrintHierarchy&maximum_levels=99&taxon_no=36652

Subfm. Protocetinae
G. Artiocetus
Artiocetus clavis (type)
G. Gaviacetus
Gaviacetus razai (type)
Gaviacetus sahnii
G. Indocetus
Indocetus ramani (type)
G. Protocetus
Protocetus atavus (type)

"Procetus" is not listed with them, but listed farther down the page,
and has little information.

G. Procetus (nomen nudum)
Squalodon serratus

http://flatpebble.nceas.ucsb.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=36828
Procetus
Classification
No classification data are available

But Protocetus comes up with extensive information.
http://flatpebble.nceas.ucsb.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=36833

[sharon1...@yahoo.com]

If its okay, I'll quote you, and I have one more question: What about
molecular data, dna comparisons? Wouldn't that be a standard procedure
scientists use now to classify a fossil? Would it have been done with
Procetus' remains?

[sharon1...@yahoo.com]

Mike wrote:
> > I'm searching for an image (scientific sketch or photograph / both is
> > better) of Procetus, the early whale. Google images comes up dry, have
> > searched through early whale sites (Gingerich and Thewissen), didn't
> > find Procetus, and searched some books on paleontology, no images.
> >
> > Any online journals that might have Procetus, or information where the
> > skeleton has been published and back-order available?
>
> There's a page here about the evolution of whales-
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html

I added that link and the other links that came up in the thread, the
list of mammalia was very interesting. Sirenians were included on the
list, too! All sea mammals are simply fascinating for me. Want to
eventually do something on Penguins, seals, etc. I live near the ocean,
and sometimes get to do some beachcombing... never had the luck of
seeing a sea turtle closeup (they come here to lay eggs sometimes), or
whales or porpoises. I want to though... Actually started a blog with
the many interesting seashells that wash up. Getting a long close look
at shells, I was fascinated with how mollusks evolved... sometimes you
can compare similar shells, and the evolution that occured becomes so
clear.

Anyway, back to cetacean evolution...
Here's something I'm about to link though, never shared it on this
newsgroup.
Hind Limb Bud Images, Dolphin Embryo and Fetus Development
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/hind_limb_buds/
Photographs of hind limb buds on a five week old Pantropical Spotted
Dolphin embryo, and 1.5 to 4 month fetus development. Images courtesy
of Professor J.G.M. Thewissen.

Thanks for everyone's help, and if anyone has any information where I
can get a skeleton photograph, or scientific illustration of Procetus,
please contact me. I'm placing all the images I've illustrated on
Photobucket, so they'll be free access to the public. Always interested
to come across something good to illustrate and share.