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

Sagmatias cruciger

Mammalia - Cetacea - Delphinidae

Taxonomy
Delphinus cruciger was named by Quoy and Gaimard (1824). It is extant. Its type specimen is none designated.

It was recombined as Lagenorhynchus cruciger by Trouessart (1904), Scheffer and Rice (1963), Hershkovitz (1966), Rice (1998) and Mead and Brownell (2005); it was considered an invalid subgroup of Lissodelphinae by Agnarsson and May-Collado (2008); it was recombined as Sagmatias cruciger by LeDuc et al. (1999), Perrin et al. (2013) and Vollmer et al. (2019).

Synonyms
Synonymy list
YearName and author
1824Delphinus albigena Quoy and Gaimard
1824Delphinus cruciger Quoy and Gaimard
1826Delphinus bivittatus Lesson and Garnot
1829Delphinus albigena Fischer p. 506
1829Delphinus cruciger Fischer p. 506
1829Delphinus bivittatus Fischer p. 510
1849Lagenorhynchus clanculus Gray
1850Lagenorhynchus clanculus Gray p. 102
1853Delphinus breviceps Jacquinot and Pucheran
1866Lagenorhynchus clanculus Gray p. 216
1866Lagenorhynchus breviceps Gray p. 271
1866Lagenorhynchus clanculus Gray p. 271
1868Electra clanculus Gray p. 7
1873Electra clancula Gray p. 144
1893Phocaena posidonia Philippi p. 9 figs. Plate 2, Fig. 1
1904Delphinus albigena Trouessart p. 765
1904Lagenorhynchus cruciger Trouessart p. 767
1904Lagenorhynchus posidonia Trouessart p. 767
1904Lagenorhynchus thicolea breviceps Trouessart p. 767
1963Lagenorhynchus cruciger Scheffer and Rice p. 6
1966Lagenorhynchus cruciger Hershkovitz p. 62
1998Lagenorhynchus cruciger Rice p. 115
1999Sagmatias cruciger LeDuc et al. p. 639 figs. Figure 2
2005Lagenorhynchus cruciger Mead and Brownell p. 730
2013Sagmatias cruciger Perrin et al. p. 571 figs. Table 1
2019Sagmatias cruciger Vollmer et al.

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

RankNameAuthor
kingdomAnimalia()
Triploblastica
Nephrozoa
Deuterostomia
phylumChordataHaeckel 1847
subphylumVertebrata
superclassGnathostomata
Osteichthyes()
Sarcopterygii
subclassDipnotetrapodomorpha(Nelson 2006)
subclassTetrapodomorpha()
Tetrapoda
Reptiliomorpha
Anthracosauria
Batrachosauria()
Cotylosauria()
Amniota
Synapsida()
RankNameAuthor
Therapsida()
infraorderCynodontia()
Epicynodontia
infraorderEucynodontia
Probainognathia
Mammaliamorpha
Mammaliaformes
classMammalia
orderCetacea
Pelagiceti
Neoceti
suborderOdontoceti
infraorderDelphinida
superfamilyDelphinoidea
familyDelphinidae
subfamilyLissodelphininae()
genusSagmatias
speciescruciger(Quoy and Gaimard 1824)

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
ReferenceDiagnosis
N. L. Vollmer et al. 2019Sagmatias cruciger has a distinctive black and white pigmentation pattern that easily distinguishes it from the other three Sagmatias species—laterally there are two distinct white blazes (which are often connected by a thin white line) that separate areas of black coloration. Additional features of S. cruciger coloration are given under Coloration.
In general, the skull morphology of all four species of Sagmatias is similar, however, both S. australis and S. cruciger can be distinguished from other Sagmatias species by their shorter rostral length, longer braincase, and higher ramus (Miyazaki and Shikano 1997b). Further- more, S. cruciger is differentiated from S. australis by its greater width of external nares and rostrum base and its smaller braincase (Miyazaki and Shikano 1997b). Sagmatias cruciger has a larger vertebral count and its vertebrae are smaller in overall size compared to those of S. australis (Goodall et al. 1997a, Miyazaki and Shikano 1997b).
Molecular data from both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA markers support the differentiation of S. cruciger from the other species of Sag- matias, Leucopleurus, Lagenorhynchus, Lissodelphis, and Cephalor- hynchus (Fig. 2, 3). In these phylogenies, a close sister-species relationship is often recovered between S. cruciger and S. australis; however, the relationship between S. cruciger and S. obliquidens/ S. obscurus is less clear and studies often have included little to no data from some of these species and particularly S. cruciger (Table 2; LeDuc et al. 1999, Harlin-Cognato and Honeycutt 2006, Agnarsson and May- Collado 2008, McGowen 2011, Banguera-Hinestroza et al. 2014a). Thus, genus-level taxonomic revision may be necessary for S. cruciger conse- quent on additional analyses.