Miacis cognitus [link to wiki where this quote is from] is the only species of the diverse genus Miacis that is regarded as belonging to the crown-group Carnivora, within the Caniformia. The type specimen or holotype was discovered in Reeve's bonebed, western Texas, in the Chambers Tuff Formation in 1986. The University of Texas holds this specimen. It is the only confirmed fossil of this species. The holotype is missing the mandible, upper canines, and zygomatic arch. The remainder of the skull is damaged, but relatively intact.
Here is by the way from Feliformia:
In the Middle Eocene (about 42 mya) the miacids started to branch into two distinct groups of the order Carnivora: the Feliforms and Caniforms. The miacid precursors to the extant Feliforms remained forest-dwelling, arboreal or semi-arboreal ambush hunters, while the Caniform precursors were more mobile, opportunistic hunters. While it is clear the first Feliforms appeared at this time, there is no clear common ancestor of the Feliform families in the fossil records. As forest dwellers, the early Feliforms were subject to more rapid decomposition in the absence of sedimentary materials, resulting in large gaps in the fossil records.The miacoids are divided into two groups: the miacids, with a full complement of molars, and the viverravines with a reduced number of molars and more specialized carnassials. These dental differences resemble the difference between Caniforms (with more teeth) and Feliforms (with fewer teeth) but this may not mean evolutionary lineages. It was thought that Viverravidae was basal to the Feliforms. However, recent studies suggest this is not the case (Wesley-Hunt and John J. Flynn 2005).
So, now we go to Miacoidea:
Miacoidea is a paraphyletic superfamily that had been traditionally divided into two families of carnivores: Miacidae (the miacids) and Viverravidae.
And to Miacidae:
Some species of the genus Miacis are closely related to the order Carnivora, but only the species Miacis cognitus is a true carnivoran, as it is classified in the Caniformia.
But is this a good classification? Look at what is left of only fossil:
No nether part of skull left. How do you decide if caniform or feliform?
Now, problem for Creationism is this would be a transitional fossile if Miacis Cognita was caniform but other miacids developing from it were feliform. You see, the African Palm Civet counts as feliform and also counts as closest lookalike to Miacis Cognita:
In skull morphology alone, the African palm civet, Nandinia binotata takes the prize of looking most like its distant relative.
But with five teeth showing and no nether cranium, can we take the classification as a caniform very seriously? Miacis Cognita means Miacis the Known. It is almost as good a binomial as Homo Sapiens which mean Man the Wise. Man is not always very wise and Miacis is not very known. Least of all as a clear transitional fossile between Caniforms and Feliforms. We have not even any clear transition between civets and weasels, and I seriously doubt if anything counts as clear transition between cats and civets or between weasels and dogs or bears.
To my amateur scientist and creationist mind, this is an epic fail.
Biblio/BiJ de Limay
3. sept 2012
Martyrs de la Révolution
(si je ne me trompe pas)