| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Artiocetus
Taxonomy
Artiocetus was named by Gingerich et al. (2001). It was considered monophyletic by Uhen et al. (2011).
It was assigned to Indocetinae by McLeod and Barnes (2008); to Cetaceamorpha by Spaulding et al. (2009); to Protocetinae by Gingerich et al. (2005) and Gao and Ni (2015); and to Protocetidae by Gingerich et al. (2001), Geisler and Sanders (2003), van Vliet (2004), Bianucci and Gingerich (2011), Uhen et al. (2011), Gingerich (2012), Uhen (2014), Gingerich and Cappetta (2014), Marx et al. (2016) and Berta (2017).
It was assigned to Indocetinae by McLeod and Barnes (2008); to Cetaceamorpha by Spaulding et al. (2009); to Protocetinae by Gingerich et al. (2005) and Gao and Ni (2015); and to Protocetidae by Gingerich et al. (2001), Geisler and Sanders (2003), van Vliet (2004), Bianucci and Gingerich (2011), Uhen et al. (2011), Gingerich (2012), Uhen (2014), Gingerich and Cappetta (2014), Marx et al. (2016) and Berta (2017).
Species
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 2001 | Artiocetus Gingerich et al. |
| 2003 | Artiocetus Geisler and Sanders p. 27 |
| 2004 | Artiocetus van Vliet p. 143 |
| 2005 | Artiocetus Gingerich et al. p. 200 |
| 2008 | Artiocetus McLeod and Barnes p. 93 |
| 2009 | Artiocetus Spaulding et al. |
| 2011 | Artiocetus Bianucci and Gingerich p. 1174 |
| 2011 | Artiocetus Uhen et al. p. 966 figs. Figure 10 |
| 2012 | Artiocetus Gingerich p. 313 figs. Figure 4 |
| 2014 | Artiocetus Gingerich and Cappetta p. 128 figs. Figure 16 |
| 2014 | Artiocetus Uhen p. 1030 |
| 2015 | Artiocetus Gao and Ni p. 156 figs. Table 1 |
| 2016 | Artiocetus Marx et al. p. 100 |
| 2017 | Artiocetus Berta p. 159 |
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
No diagnoses are available