PBDB Taxon

Basic info	Taxonomic history	Classification	Included Taxa
Morphology	Ecology and taphonomy	External Literature Search	Age range and collections

Remingtonocetidae

Mammalia - Cetacea - Remingtonocetidae

Taxonomy

Remingtonocetidae was named by Kumar and Sahni (1986). It is the type family of Malleodectidae. It was considered monophyletic by Thewissen and Bajpai (2009).

It was assigned to Odontoceti by Benton (1993); to Archaeoceti by Bianucci and Landini (2007); to Remingtonocetoidea by Mitchell (1989), Rice (1998), Gingerich (2005) and Rice (2009); to Archaeoceti by Kumar and Sahni (1986), Fordyce and Barnes (1994), Fordyce et al. (1995), McKenna and Bell (1997), Fordyce and de Muizon (2001), Gingerich et al. (2001), Gingerich et al. (2001), Rice (2002), Fordyce (2003), Geisler and Sanders (2003), McLeod and Barnes (2008), Gingerich (2012) and Gao and Ni (2015); to Cetacea by van Vliet (2004), Marx et al. (2016), Berta (2017) and Uhen and Peredo (2021); and to Cetacea by Thewissen et al. (2001), Thewissen and Bajpai (2009), Uhen (2010), Bebej et al. (2015) and Chakraborty and Sengupta (2023).

Subtaxa

Andrewsiphiinae, Rayanistes, Remingtonocetinae

Synonymy list

Year	Name and author
1986	Remingtonocetidae Kumar and Sahni
1989	Remingtonocetidae Mitchell
1993	Remingtonocetidae Benton p. 761
1994	Remingtonocetidae Fordyce and Barnes p. 428 figs. Table 1
1995	Remingtonocetidae Fordyce et al. p. 379
1997	Remingtonocetidae McKenna and Bell p. 370
1998	Remingtonocetidae Rice
2001	Remingtonocetidae Fordyce and de Muizon p. 176
2001	Remingtonocetidae Gingerich et al.
2001	Remingtonocetidae Thewissen et al. p. 351 figs. Table 1
2002	Remingtonocetidae Rice p. 231 figs. Table 1
2003	Remingtonocetidae Fordyce p. 156 figs. Figure 9.1
2003	Remingtonocetidae Geisler and Sanders p. 27
2004	Remingtonocetidae van Vliet p. 143
2005	Remingtonocetidae Gingerich p. 237 figs. Table 15.1
2007	Remingtonocetidae Bianucci and Landini p. 45 figs. Table 2.1
2008	Remingtonocetidae McLeod and Barnes p. 93
2009	Remingtonocetidae Rice p. 235 figs. Table 1
2009	Remingtonocetidae Thewissen and Bajpai p. 635
2010	Remingtonocetidae Uhen p. 203 figs. Figure 1
2012	Remingtonocetidae Gingerich p. 313 figs. Figure 4
2015	Remingtonocetidae Bebej et al.
2015	Remingtonocetidae Gao and Ni p. 156 figs. Table 1
2016	Remingtonocetidae Marx et al. p. 98
2017	Remingtonocetidae Berta p. 159
2021	Remingtonocetidae Uhen and Peredo
2023	Remingtonocetidae Chakraborty and Sengupta p. 515

Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data

Rank	Name	Author
kingdom	Animalia	()
—	Bilateria
—	Eubilateria	Ax 1987
—	Deuterostomia
phylum	Chordata	Haeckel 1874
subphylum	Vertebrata
superclass	Gnathostomata
—	Osteichthyes	()
subclass	Sarcopterygii	()
subclass	Dipnotetrapodomorpha	(Nelson 2006)
subclass	Tetrapodomorpha	()
—	Tetrapoda
—	Reptiliomorpha
—	Anthracosauria
subclass	Amphibiosauria	Kuhn 1967
—	Cotylosauria	()
—	Amniota
subclass	Synapsida
—	Therapsida	()
infraorder	Cynodontia	()

Rank	Name	Author
—	Mammaliamorpha
—	Mammaliaformes
class	Mammalia
—	Cladotheria
—	Zatheria
subclass	Tribosphenida	()
subclass	Theria
—	Eutheria	()
—	Placentalia
—	Boreoeutheria
—	Laurasiatheria
—	Scrotifera
—	Euungulata
—	Artiodactylamorpha
—	Artiodactyla	()
—	Whippomorpha
order	Cetacea
family	Remingtonocetidae
family	Remingtonocetidae

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.

Fm. †Remingtonocetidae Kumar and Sahni 1986

show all | hide all

Subfm. †Andrewsiphiinae Thewissen and Bajpai 2009

hide

G. †Andrewsiphius Sahni and Mishra 1975

hide

†Andrewsiphius sloani Sahni and Mishra 1972

Invalid names: Andrewsiphius kutchensis Sahni and Mishra 1975 [synonym]

G. †Kutchicetus Bajpai and Thewissen 2000

hide

†Kutchicetus minimus Bajpai and Thewissen 2000

G. †Rayanistes Bebej et al. 2015

hide

†Rayanistes afer Bebej et al. 2015

Subfm. †Remingtonocetinae Thewissen and Bajpai 2009

hide

G. †Attockicetus Thewissen and Hussain 2000

hide

†Attockicetus praecursor Thewissen and Hussain 2000

G. †Dalanistes Gingerich et al. 1995

hide

†Dalanistes ahmedi Gingerich et al. 1995

G. †Remingtonocetus Kumar and Sahni 1986

hide

†Remingtonocetus domandaensis Gingerich et al. 2001

†Remingtonocetus harudiensis Sahni and Mishra 1975

Diagnosis

Reference	Diagnosis
R. M. Bebej et al. 2015	Remingtonocetidae differ from all other archaeocetes in having extremely long, narrow skulls; relatively narrow supraorbital shields; small orbits; convex palates; palatine-pterygoid surfaces with prominent midline keels; laterally-positioned auditory bullae; and long mandibular sym- physes extending to or beyond the position of P3 (Kumar and Sahni, 1986; Gingerich et al., 1995a, 1998; Williams, 1998). In the postcranial skeleton, remingtonocetids are distinguished from contemporary protocetids in having relatively long cervical vertebrae, a narrower sacrum, distinctive innominates, and a femur lacking a distinct fovea capitis femoris (Gingerich et al., 1995a, 1998; Madar et al., 2002). Remingtonocetid sacra are relatively narrow and long, with a minimal biauricular breadth to sacral length ratio in the range of 0.38 to 0.49. The pakicetid Pakicetus is at the small end of this range (Madar, 2007), and the ambulocetid Ambulocetus is at the large end of this range (Madar et al., 2002). Protocetids, in contrast, have broader sacra, with a minimal biauricular breadth to sacral length ratio in the range of 0.47 to 0.76. Remingtonocetid innominates have bladelike ilia and ischia rising sharply from the body anterior and posterior to the acetabulum. The acetabulum appears relatively large and deep due to its sharp rim, although measurements of relative size and depth do not show a clear difference from protocetids. The acetabular notch separating ends of the lunate surface within the acetabulum is narrow or closed entirely. Remingtonocetids have an acetabular notch to acetabulum diameter ratio ranging from 0.00 (closed) to 0.12, in contrast to protocetids, for which this ratio ranges from 0.28 to 0.38. Remingtonocetid femora differ from those of most other middle Eocene archaeocetes in lacking a distinct fovea capitis femoris. In addition, remingtonocetid femora have denser cortical bone than those of contemporary protocetids and consequently show less damage due to compression during burial.