First, _Mesonyx obtusidens_ is *not* also known as _Pachy-
aena_. They are two separate genera and are listed as such in the
Gould and Szalay article, in Romer's _Vertebrate Paleontology_ 3rd
ed. (1966), and in Carroll's _Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolu-
tion_ (1988). I don't understand where this claim came from. Even
if they were the same, I quoted Carroll in my last post for the
point that a lower Eocene mesonychid (such as _Hapalodectes_) would
be too late to be an ancestor of whales.
Secondly, when I wrote, "In the Nehm and Geary study, none of
the alleged ancestors appeared in the fossil record after their
descendants," I meant (I thought obviously) that none of them FIRST
appeared after their alleged descendants, which is contrary to
Glenn's claim that _Mesonyx_ FIRST appeared after its alleged
descendant, _Ambulocetus_. In the Nehm and Geary study, _P. con._,
the alleged ancestor of _P.chris_-P.con._ and of _P.chris_, FIRST
appeared at strata 1 whereas its alleged descendants do not FIRST
appear until levels 3 and 4, respectively. I was not talking about
how long any of them continue in the record after they FIRST
appear.
When I wrote (in the following sentence), "Rather, the
study is used to make the claim that *if* erosion had wiped out the
record of the alleged ancestor's (_P. con.'s_) earlier existence,
then a false impression would be created that _P. con_ was not old
enough to be the ancestor of _P. chris_," I meant (I thought
obviously) that that was how GLENN was using the study in his
argument in response to my post. That is why I said "the study is
USED ..." Nehm and Geary DID the study; Glenn USED their study.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I used to think I knew
how to communicate. No matter; I am determined not to say another
word on this subject. I end my involvement with a thanks to Glenn
(my own personal tar baby) for challenging my thinking and for
keeping the discussion civil.
Ashby