Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet.

The picture you linked to is the artists depiction based on only the skull, just as the national geographic's depiction. Our best guess, so far, is that it is likely to have had webbed feet, based on our knowledge of the anatomy's of animals living today in similar environments.

Some (like Pakicetus and Protocetus) still had vestigial rear limbs (flippers) from their land roving days.

Pakicetus inachus - This seal-like, toothed cetacean may have divided its time between the land and the shoreline, rivers, and estuaries.

The diagram shows the imaginative reconstruction taught to schoolteachers and on the cover of Science, compared to the reality as reported in the same issue. Note that only the stippled parts of the skull represent actual fossil evidence, while the rest is ”reconstructed.’

In 2001, further fossils were discovered (Thewissen et al., 2001), making Pakicetus appear more terrestrial and less aquatic. It is now thought to have possessed goat-like legs (http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetid.html) and been primarily a running land animal.

that's not what i'd call an evo source, is it? aside from that, it's evidently outdated, isn't it? the picture of a skeleton i posted above is at least 50% complete, with reconstructions based on ambulocetus.

which other land mammals? show me.

The pakicetid innominate (Fig. 1n) is large and the ischium is longer than the ilium. The tibia is long in pakicetids and has a short tibial crest. Long tibiae are present in fast land mammals21 and also in phocid seals20, 22. In phocids, the large ischium, short femur with asymmetrical condyles combined with the long tibia with long tibial crest allow the hamstrings to act as foot adductors (knee flexors with thigh in abducted position) while swimming20. The relative lengths of these bones in pakicetids, their slender appearance, the short tibial crest, high patellar groove, and symmetrical knee make the phocid mode of locomotion unlikely for pakicetids, and their external morphology is more similar to that of running and jumping mammals21.Running features are also found in the ankle where the proximal trochlea of the astragalus is constrained to a tight hinge joint (Fig. 1o’r). Like artiodactyls23, 24, pakicetids have a trochleated astragalar head rotating in the dorso-plantar plane. The sustentacular facet is a hinge that also rotates dorso-plantarly, and the ectal facet is small and laterally placed. The calcaneum (Fig. 1s and t) has a long tuber and an obliquely set, narrow cuboid facet. These features are commonly interpreted as adaptations for running23, 24, 25, although they are retained in non-running, graviportal artiodactyls.The hands of Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are equally robust; the ratio of midshaft width to length of the central metacarpal is 0.17 and 0.18 respectively. On the other hand, the feet of Ambulocetus exceed those of Pakicetus in robustness by more than 20% (this ratio for metatarsal III is 0.11 and 0.14 respectively). Ambulocetus probably swam using its hind limbs as the main propulsor, and its robust feet may be an adaptation for forcefully displacing water during swimming9. Pakicetids, on the other hand, had the slender metapodials of running animals.....
The orbits of pakicetids are close together and are frontated (face dorsally) but are not at the most dorsal point of the head (Fig. 3). This is unlike any other cetacean.

Deep, near-vertical gouges constitute most of the dental wear in pakicetids29. Cladistic arguments have been used to link this wear pattern to aquatic predation on fish29, but no functional model or modern analogue is known. Moreover, this kind of dental wear also occurs in raoellid artiodactyls30. Although this dental wear probably represents a distinctive way of food processing, it does not necessarily imply aquatic life.

Unlike any other cetacean, the pakicetid outer ear was unspecialized and similar to that of land mammals6. The external auditory meatus opens low on the side of the skull, and the mandible has a small mandibular foramen31. In amphibious mammals, the external auditory meatus commonly opens dorsally.

The pakicetid middle ear was highly specialized and included pachy-osteosclerotic ossicles2, an involucrum6 and a plate-like sigmoid process6. These features have been interpreted as adaptations for underwater hearing31, and it has been suggested that the presence of an involucrum facilitates underwater high-frequency transmission in modern odontocetes32 even though the involucrum is also present in low-frequency mysticetes. In the case of pakicetids, the absence of air sinuses insulating the ears12, the firm fusion of the periotic to the surrounding bones2, 12, and the presence of a flat tympanic membrane3, 6 suggest that reception of airborne sound is well developed, but are inconsistent with good underwater hearing3, 12. It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals33 and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the head is in contact with the ground8. Turtles are in close contact with the substrate and gather sensory information using this method34.Taken together, the features of the skull indicate that pakicetids were terrestrial, and the locomotor skeleton displays running adaptations. Some features of the sense organs of pakicetids are also found in aquatic mammals, but they do not necessarily imply life in water. Pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir.

This is a tough chapter to summarize. It's about teeth. It's virtually all about teeth. There are detailed pictures and diagrams of teeth. There are numerous terms that refer to features on teeth (paracones, metaconids, trigon basin, cusps, reentrant grooves, etc.)Reading her first paragraph provides some insight about the uncertainty regarding exactly what group the cetaceans are descended from. The question is artiodactyl vs. mesonychian, but they are both ungulate groups! In her first sentence, O'Leary calls the mesonychians "an aberrant group of carnivorous mammals nested within the ungulates".She reviews what's been happening, notably the molecular AND morphological evidence for the Artiodactyla connection. But, a body of morphological work - mostly dental and cranial - supports the mesonychian connection,

Pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir.