| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Tupelocetus
Taxonomy
Tupelocetus was named by Gibson et al. (2019). Its type is Tupelocetus palmeri.
It was assigned to Protocetidae by Gibson et al. (2019).
It was assigned to Protocetidae by Gibson et al. (2019).
Species
T. palmeri (type species)
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 2019 | Tupelocetus Gibson et al. |
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.
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| M. L. Gibson et al. 2019 | Tupelocetus palmeri is unique among protocetids in having the following autapomorphy: a deeply excavated central fossa of the occiput. Differs from Protocetus atavus, Geor- giacetus vogtlensis, Kharodacetus sahnii, and Dhedacetus hyaeni in lacking a posteriorly positioned, accessory cusp on P2 (although heavily worn in Protocetus). The enamel of the P2 in Tupelocetus is more coarsely ornamented than those, or adjacent, teeth of Artiocetus clavis, Rodhocetus, Babiacetus indicus, Maiace- tus inuus, Aegyptocetus tarfa, and Dhedacetus hyaeni, and teeth referred to Togocetus traversei. Differs from Qaisracetus arifi, Rodhocetus, Maiacetus inuus, Artiocetus clavis, Gaviacetus razai, and Georgiacetus vogtlensis in having large nasal processes of the frontals. Unlike Protocetus atavus, Carolinacetus gingerichi, Rodhocetus, and Qaisracetus arifi, Tupelocetus has a parietal ridge. Further differs from Carolinacetus gingerichi and Maiacetus inuus in having the ascending process of the premaxilla terminate at the level of P2 or P3, instead of more anteriorly. The basicra- nium is only slightly narrower at the external auditory meatus, as compared with the abrupt narrowing seen in Georgiacetus vogtlensis, Protocetus atavus, Artiocetus clavis, Gaviacetus razai, and Maiacetus inuus. Differs from Artiocetus clavis, Qaisracetus arifi, and Gaviacetus razai in a foramen ‘pseudo-ovale’ that is open ventrally. Further differs from Carolinacetus gingerichi, Georgiacetus vogtlensis, Artiocetus clavis, and Gaviacetus razai in having a lateral lip of the entoglenoid process that slightly over- hangs adjacent parts of the squamosal, with the skull in ventral view. Tupelocetus can be differentiated from the fragmentary holotype of Indocetus ramani in having a much longer external auditory meatus and posterior process of the tympanic, relative to the distances from these structures to the entoglenoid process. Likely differs from Crenatocetus rayi, Takracetus simus, and Togocetus traversei in being significantly larger, although this cannot be confirmed because comparable elements are lacking. Preserved material does not allow Tupelocetus palmeri to be distinguished from Natchitochia jonesi and Pappocetus lugardi (see Discussion). |