Abstract
IN NATURE for September 29 (p. 543) “R. L.” reviews Dr. Fraas's paper on the Egyptian zeuglodonts, dissenting from the conclusions that the zeuglodonts are not whales, and that the ancestors of the whales are at present un known. I trust “R. L.” will pardon me for in turn dissenting from these assertions, and for agreeing entirely with Dr. Fraas. So long ago as 1900, in discussing the pelvic girdle of Basilosaurus, I pointed out that the vestigial femur suggested that of a creodont, while later, in Science for March 11, I recorded my utter disbelief in any relation ship between Basilosaurus and existing whales. Consequently, while greatly pleased at the results of Dr. Fraas's study of the small zeuglodonts, I was not at all surprised. It seems to me that our knowledge of Eocene mammals is really very small, and that it will be many years before we will be able to trace the line of descent of many existing forms with any degree of certainty. This is most emphatically true of the whales, the ancestry of which is still obscure. At the same time I have pointed out (Science, March 11) that the Eocene deposits of the southern United States contain remains of a large cetacean that is at present known to us by a few caudals alone. This form is undescribed, because it seemed to me best to await the discovery of better material than caudals. So while the ancestors of whales are still unknown, we have a hint that they may be discovered any day.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
LUCAS, F. Eocene Whales. Nature 71, 102 (1904). https://doi.org/10.1038/071102a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/071102a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.