| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Amphidelphis
Taxonomy
Amphidelphis was named by Lambert et al. (2025). Its type is Acrodelphis bakersfieldensis.
It was assigned to Odontoceti by Lambert et al. (2025).
It was assigned to Odontoceti by Lambert et al. (2025).
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 2025 | Amphidelphis Lambert et al. p. 388 |
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.
G. †Amphidelphis Lambert et al. 2025
show all | hide all
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| O. Lambert et al. 2025 | The differential diagnosis focuses primarily on differ-
ences with taxa that were found to be closely related to Amphidelphis in our phylogenetic analysis and comparison (other members of the Chilcacetus clade, Eoplatanistidae, Eurhinodelphinidae, and Squaloziphiidae). Amphidelphis bakersfieldensis n. comb. is a small (bizygomatic width estimated at 174 mm in the holotype), longi- rostrine, and homodont dolphin species differing from Argyrocetus patagonicus in its smaller size, in the rostrum being proportionally considerably shorter (ratio between preorbital width and rostrum length estimated at 0.5), and lacking an extended premaxillary portion, in the dorsal opening of the mesorostral groove being narrower than the premaxilla at rostrum base, in the premaxillary foramen being roughly at the level of the antorbital notch, and in the absence of ankylosis for the symphysis of the mandibles; from ‘Argyrocetus’ joaquinensis in its smaller size, in the dorsal opening of the mesorostral groove being narrower than the premaxilla at rostrum base, in the presence of more than one dorsal infraorbital foramen at rostrum base, in the proportionally shorter and wider nasals, and in the nasals partly overhanging the bony nares; from Chilcacetus in its smaller size, in the rostrum being proportionally shorter, in possessing a deep sulcus anterior to the main dorsal in- fraorbital foramen at rostrum base, and in the palatines not being separated anteromedially for a long distance at rostrum base; from Perditicetus in its smaller size, in the premaxillary foramen being roughly at the level of the antorbital notch, and in the zygomatic process of the squamosal being dorsoventrally more slender; from Caolodelphis in its smaller size, the frontals not being separated anteromedially on the vertex, and the basioccipital crests being transversely thinner; from Macrodelphinus in its much smaller size, in the rostrum being proportionally shorter and lacking an extended premaxillary portion, in the premaxillary foramen being roughly at the level of the antorbital notch, and in the exposure of the frontals on the vertex being shorter and narrower. It differs from Crisocetus, Dolgopolis, Squaloziphius, and Yaquinace- tus in the postglenoid process of the squamosal being significantly shorter anteroposteriorly, and from Dolgopolis, Squaloziphius, and Yaquinacetus in the dorsal opening of the mesorostral groove be- ing more gradual anterior to the bony nares. It differs from most members of other longirostrine to hyper-longirostrine homodont extinct families (including Eoplatanistidae and Eurhinodelphinidae) in the absence of a deep lateral groove along most of the rostrum and in the absence of ankylosis for the symphysis of the mandibles. It further differs from Eurhinodelphinidae in lacking an extended edentulous anterior premaxillary portion of the rostrum and in the nasals partly overhanging the bony nares. It further differs from Eo- platanistidae in the premaxillary foramen being roughly at the level of the antorbital notch, in the thinner and flatter antorbital process, in the acute anterior margin of the nasal partly overhanging the bony nares, and in the less anteriorly projected supraoccipital shield. |