Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Dorudon serratus
Taxonomy
Dorudon serratus was named by Gibbes (1845). Its type specimen is MCZ 8763, a maxilla, and it is a 3D body fossil. Its type locality is Mazyck Plantation, which is in a Priabonian offshore shelf sandstone in the Moncks Corner Greensand Formation of South Carolina. It is the type species of Dorudon.
It was recombined as Basilosaurus serratus by Gibbes (1847), Leidy (1854) and Gray and Adams (1859); it was synonymized subjectively with Zeuglodon brachyspondylus by Muller (1849) and Bronn (1853); it was recombined as Doryodon serratus by Cope (1868); it was recombined as Zeuglodon serratus by Trouessart (1898); it was recombined as Zeuglodon serratum by Abel (1914).
It was recombined as Basilosaurus serratus by Gibbes (1847), Leidy (1854) and Gray and Adams (1859); it was synonymized subjectively with Zeuglodon brachyspondylus by Muller (1849) and Bronn (1853); it was recombined as Doryodon serratus by Cope (1868); it was recombined as Zeuglodon serratus by Trouessart (1898); it was recombined as Zeuglodon serratum by Abel (1914).
Synonymy list
Year | Name and author |
---|---|
1845 | Dorudon serratus Gibbes p. 256 figs. Plate 1 |
1847 | Basilosaurus serratus Gibbes p. 15 |
1854 | Basilosaurus serratus Leidy p. 8 |
1859 | Basilosaurus serratus Gray and Adams p. 203 |
1868 | Doryodon serratus Cope p. 155 |
1869 | Dorudon serratus Leidy p. 428 |
1898 | Zeuglodon serratus Trouessart p. 1010 |
1902 | Dorudon serratus Hay p. 587 |
1904 | Dorudon serratus Trouessart p. 754 |
1908 | Dorudon serratus True p. 5 |
1914 | Zeuglodon serratum Abel p. 204 |
1930 | Dorudon serratus Hay p. 568 |
1936 | Dorudon serratus Kellogg p. 178 |
1996 | Dorudon serratus Uhen p. 49 |
1998 | Dorudon serratus Uhen p. 35 |
2002 | Dorudon serratus Uhen p. 79 |
2004 | Dorudon serratus Uhen pp. 13-14 |
2006 | Dorudon serratus Bouetel and Muizon p. 383 |
2008 | Dorudon serratus McLeod and Barnes p. 93 |
2008 | Dorudon serratus Uhen p. 562 |
2009 | Dorudon serratus Uhen p. 93 |
2011 | Dorudon serratus Schouten p. 18 |
2013 | Dorudon serratus Uhen p. 10 figs. Figure 7 |
2018 | Dorudon serratus Uhen |
Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data
|
|
If no rank is listed, the taxon is considered an unranked clade in modern classifications. Ranks may be repeated or presented in the wrong order because authors working on different parts of the classification may disagree about how to rank taxa.
†Dorudon serratus Gibbes 1845
show all | hide all
Diagnosis
Reference | Diagnosis | |
---|---|---|
M. D. Uhen 2004 | Dorudon serratus is difficult to diagnose since there is very little material included in the type specimen and the individual that the material is from is a juvenile. It appears that the posterior upper deciduous premolars of Zygorhiza kochii have a well-developed distal cingulum that is not highly ornamented, which the upper deciduous premolars of members of the genus Dorudon lack. Differences that distinguish D. serratus from Dorudon atrox include: the presence of three vs. two mesial accessory denticles on dP2; weaker mesial and distal cingula on the upper premolars; stronger vertical rib ornamentation on the upper premolars; and a weaker lingual projection (Andrew’s “postero-internal buttress” of D. atrox) and dP3 and dP4. | |
M. D. Uhen 2013 | Dorudon serratus is difficult to diagnose because there is very little material included in the type specimen, and the type specimen is a juvenile individual. It appears that the posterior upper deciduous premolars of Zygorhiza kochii have a well-developed distal cingulum that is not highly ornamented, which the upper decid- uous premolars of members of the genus Dorudon lack. Differences that distinguish D. serratus from Dorudon atrox include: the presence of three vs. two mesial accessory denticles on dP2; weaker mesial and distal cingula on the upper premolars; stronger vertical rib ornamentation on the upper premolars; and a weaker lingual projection (Andrew’s “posterointernal buttress” of D. atrox) on dP3 and dP4 (after Uhen, 2004). |