Whale Evolution

[Yutyrannus]

I'm currently drawing a Maiacetus and I was wondering if primitive whales (from pakicetids to protocetids) had whiskers. Does anyone know if they did or did not?

[Ultimatedinoking]

Possibly, considering that they lived in rivers and had smallish eyes, that and the fact that living whales only have hairs around the mouth makes it likely.

[Yutyrannus]

Actually some of them (like Ambulocetus) could swim between saltwater and freshwater. Also, whiskers are pretty close to the mouth.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Actually some of them (like Ambulocetus) could swim between saltwater and freshwater. Also, whiskers are pretty close to the mouth.

Perhaps they had large kidneys?

That's what I was saying.

[Newt]

Modern cetaceans develop whiskers during embryonic development. I don't know how you would determine presence or absence of whiskers from fossils, but it's at least plausible for early whales - especially if they are species that could not echolocate.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Modern cetaceans develop whiskers during embryonic development. I don't know how you would determine presence or absence of whiskers from fossils, but it's at least plausible for early whales - especially if they are species that could not echolocate.

You can sometimes find dents on the skull bones, showing where they would be.

[stargatedalek]

they could have functioned similarly to catfish barbels, helping species find prey hidden along the bottom

[SBell]

Modern cetaceans develop whiskers during embryonic development. I don't know how you would determine presence or absence of whiskers from fossils, but it's at least plausible for early whales - especially if they are species that could not echolocate.

You can sometimes find dents on the skull bones, showing where they would be.

On many mammals that have whiskers, there are pits in the skulls where the whiskers would be, even in very early ancestors like Thrinaxodon. I couldn't find any evidence of this in any photos or drawings, but I couldn't actually find a picture that would seem sufficiently clear to know for sure.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Modern cetaceans develop whiskers during embryonic development. I don't know how you would determine presence or absence of whiskers from fossils, but it's at least plausible for early whales - especially if they are species that could not echolocate.

You can sometimes find dents on the skull bones, showing where they would be.

On many mammals that have whiskers, there are pits in the skulls where the whiskers would be, even in very early ancestors like Thrinaxodon. I couldn't find any evidence of this in any photos or drawings, but I couldn't actually find a picture that would seem sufficiently clear to know for sure.

I was going to use thrinaxodon as an example.

Maybe they were not rooted deeply?

[SBell]

Modern cetaceans develop whiskers during embryonic development. I don't know how you would determine presence or absence of whiskers from fossils, but it's at least plausible for early whales - especially if they are species that could not echolocate.

You can sometimes find dents on the skull bones, showing where they would be.

On many mammals that have whiskers, there are pits in the skulls where the whiskers would be, even in very early ancestors like Thrinaxodon. I couldn't find any evidence of this in any photos or drawings, but I couldn't actually find a picture that would seem sufficiently clear to know for sure.

I was going to use thrinaxodon as an example.

Maybe they were not rooted deeply?

That would defeat the purpose--mammal whiskers are pressure sensitive to the environment (not chemo-receptive like a catfish) so they would need to have a fairly strong physical attachment to allow the animal to sense the environment. Unless they were rudimentary or vestigial.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Modern cetaceans develop whiskers during embryonic development. I don't know how you would determine presence or absence of whiskers from fossils, but it's at least plausible for early whales - especially if they are species that could not echolocate.

You can sometimes find dents on the skull bones, showing where they would be.

On many mammals that have whiskers, there are pits in the skulls where the whiskers would be, even in very early ancestors like Thrinaxodon. I couldn't find any evidence of this in any photos or drawings, but I couldn't actually find a picture that would seem sufficiently clear to know for sure.

I was going to use thrinaxodon as an example.

Maybe they were not rooted deeply?

That would defeat the purpose--mammal whiskers are pressure sensitive to the environment (not chemo-receptive like a catfish) so they would need to have a fairly strong physical attachment to allow the animal to sense the environment. Unless they were rudimentary or vestigial.

...lion skulls don't have attachment pits.

[SBell]

Modern cetaceans develop whiskers during embryonic development. I don't know how you would determine presence or absence of whiskers from fossils, but it's at least plausible for early whales - especially if they are species that could not echolocate.

You can sometimes find dents on the skull bones, showing where they would be.

On many mammals that have whiskers, there are pits in the skulls where the whiskers would be, even in very early ancestors like Thrinaxodon. I couldn't find any evidence of this in any photos or drawings, but I couldn't actually find a picture that would seem sufficiently clear to know for sure.

I was going to use thrinaxodon as an example.

Maybe they were not rooted deeply?

That would defeat the purpose--mammal whiskers are pressure sensitive to the environment (not chemo-receptive like a catfish) so they would need to have a fairly strong physical attachment to allow the animal to sense the environment. Unless they were rudimentary or vestigial.

...lion skulls don't have attachment pits.

I can see some right behind the base of the canine

[SBell]

Modern cetaceans develop whiskers during embryonic development. I don't know how you would determine presence or absence of whiskers from fossils, but it's at least plausible for early whales - especially if they are species that could not echolocate.

You can sometimes find dents on the skull bones, showing where they would be.

On many mammals that have whiskers, there are pits in the skulls where the whiskers would be, even in very early ancestors like Thrinaxodon. I couldn't find any evidence of this in any photos or drawings, but I couldn't actually find a picture that would seem sufficiently clear to know for sure.

I was going to use thrinaxodon as an example.

Maybe they were not rooted deeply?

That would defeat the purpose--mammal whiskers are pressure sensitive to the environment (not chemo-receptive like a catfish) so they would need to have a fairly strong physical attachment to allow the animal to sense the environment. Unless they were rudimentary or vestigial.

...lion skulls don't have attachment pits.

I can see some right behind the base of the canine

EDIT--I should clarify--these 'pits' are not going to be super deep or anything--they are attachment points for the base or root of the whisker to the skull, where they meet a nerve-ending, which can then transmit information to the brain (AKA sensory organs... ). So they are going to be subtle no matter what, but the question here is whether they are present or not on early cetaceans. Or even modern ones--I haven't a clue about that.

EDIT 2--DANGIT. That was supposed to be a modification of the previous post, not a double post. This one will hopefully work right or I'm going to look right foolish.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Whale skulls don't have them.

Are you talking about the tiny pits above the premolars? Or the. Large holes on the lower jaw, those are nerve openings.

[stargatedalek]

Are any particular species suspected of being bottom feeders? (shellfish in particular)
these are the ones I would think most likely to have distinctive whiskers

Being amphibious also seems to make whiskers more likely


admittedly I've never studied them in depth, but I've never seen pits on a modern cetacean skull

[Ultimatedinoking]

But we can't rule out that they didn't have super sensitive skin, like alligator noses.

[Yutyrannus]

Whale skulls don't have them.

Are you talking about the tiny pits above the premolars? Or the. Large holes on the lower jaw, those are nerve openings.

I never said modern whales have them.

The tiny pits.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Whale skulls don't have them.

Are you talking about the tiny pits above the premolars? Or the. Large holes on the lower jaw, those are nerve openings.

I never said modern whales have them.

The tiny pits.

I know, someone asked if whales had pits.

Ok.

[Yutyrannus]

Whale skulls don't have them.

Are you talking about the tiny pits above the premolars? Or the. Large holes on the lower jaw, those are nerve openings.

I never said modern whales have them.

The tiny pits.

I know, someone asked if whales had pits.

Ok.

They said embryonic whales had whiskers.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Whale skulls don't have them.

Are you talking about the tiny pits above the premolars? Or the. Large holes on the lower jaw, those are nerve openings.

I never said modern whales have them.

The tiny pits.

I know, someone asked if whales had pits.

Ok.

They said embryonic whales had whiskers.

I ment whale skulls.