From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I moved the page Pakicetids to Pakicetid since that's the singular form of the word. The page should really be moved to Pakicetidae or Pakicetinae, but I wasn't sure what the consensus was of those involved with this page. Are we recognizing full family status for this group or are we treating it as a subfamily of Protocetidae? The term pakicetid is just a way of referring a member of the family Pakicetidae and the technical family name would be the more appropriate home for this page. --Aranae 04:31, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I am all for moving it to Pakicetidae!! The treatment as a subfamily has not reached wide consensus (yet) as far as I can see. Fedor (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


The article says that only skull fragments have been found, then goes on in detail about limb characteristics. Is there something missing? Kortoso (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the article says that all parts of the skeleton are known, but that there have been no complete individual skeleton found yet.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


@Plantdrew: I asked over on Talk:Pakicetus the following. Another user agreed with me and removed the photo. I realise now that I should have also put this notice here too.

"I am going to delete the "skull of P. inachus, at Natural History Museum, London" this reconstruction is terrible, it was based on a braincase only before the skull was found, so the entire snout had to be made up, the eyes are totally wrong, and so is the nose opening. I will add a better more recent photo.--Akrasia25 (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to remove the photo from the article, as per your specifications.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)"

The recreation really is poor and I have removed the photo from this page too. --Akrasia25 (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)