| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Sagmatias obscurus
Taxonomy
Delphinus (Grampus) obscurus was named by Gray (1828). It is extant. Its type specimen is BMNH 41.1733, a skeleton.
It was recombined as Delphinus obscurus by Gray (1828), Gray (1846) and Nilsson (1847); it was recombined as Clymene obscurua by Gray (1866); it was recombined as Tursio obscurus by Gray (1866); it was recombined as Clymenia obscura by Gray (1868); it was recombined as Tursiops obscurus by Ameghino (1889); it was synonymized subjectively with Lagenorhynchus cruciger by Scheffer and Rice (1963) and Hershkovitz (1966); it was recombined as Sagmatias obscurus by LeDuc et al. (1999), Perrin et al. (2013) and Vollmer et al. (2019); it was considered an invalid subgroup of Lissodelphinae by Agnarsson and May-Collado (2008); it was recombined as Lagenorhynchus obscurus by Trouessart (1904), Oliver (1922), Fraser and Purves (1960), Rice (1998), Mead and Brownell (2005) and Jefferson (2021).
It was recombined as Delphinus obscurus by Gray (1828), Gray (1846) and Nilsson (1847); it was recombined as Clymene obscurua by Gray (1866); it was recombined as Tursio obscurus by Gray (1866); it was recombined as Clymenia obscura by Gray (1868); it was recombined as Tursiops obscurus by Ameghino (1889); it was synonymized subjectively with Lagenorhynchus cruciger by Scheffer and Rice (1963) and Hershkovitz (1966); it was recombined as Sagmatias obscurus by LeDuc et al. (1999), Perrin et al. (2013) and Vollmer et al. (2019); it was considered an invalid subgroup of Lissodelphinae by Agnarsson and May-Collado (2008); it was recombined as Lagenorhynchus obscurus by Trouessart (1904), Oliver (1922), Fraser and Purves (1960), Rice (1998), Mead and Brownell (2005) and Jefferson (2021).
Subspecies
Synonyms
|
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 1828 | Delphinus obscurus Gray |
| 1838 | Delphinus fitzroyi Waterhouse |
| 1840 | Delphinus breviceps Wiegmann |
| 1846 | Delphinus obscurus Gray p. 37 figs. Plate 16 |
| 1847 | Delphinus obscurus Nilsson p. 597 |
| 1853 | Delphinus breviceps Jacquinot and Pucheran |
| 1866 | Clymene obscurua Gray p. 215 |
| 1866 | Tursio obscurus Gray p. 264 |
| 1866 | Lagenorhynchus breviceps Gray p. 271 |
| 1868 | Lagenorhynchus similis Gray |
| 1868 | Clymenia obscura Gray p. 6 |
| 1868 | Clymenia similis Gray p. 6 |
| 1889 | Tursiops obscurus Ameghino p. 885 |
| 1889 | Prodelphinus petersii Reinhardt p. 40 |
| 1896 | Tursio panope Canto |
| 1904 | Lissodelphis panope Trouessart p. 766 |
| 1904 | Lagenorhynchus fitzroyi Trouessart p. 767 |
| 1904 | Lagenorhynchus obscurus Trouessart p. 767 |
| 1904 | Lagenorhynchus thicolea breviceps Trouessart p. 767 |
| 1922 | Lagenorhynchus obscurus Oliver p. 581 |
| 1960 | Lagenorhynchus obscurus Fraser and Purves p. 112 figs. Figure 26 |
| 1998 | Lagenorhynchus obscurus Rice p. 115 |
| 1999 | Sagmatias obscurus LeDuc et al. p. 639 figs. Figure 2 |
| 2005 | Lagenorhynchus obscurus Mead and Brownell p. 730 |
| 2013 | Sagmatias obscurus Perrin et al. p. 571 figs. Table 1 |
| 2019 | Sagmatias obscurus Vollmer et al. |
| 2021 | Lagenorhynchus obscurus Jefferson p. 47 |
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.
Sagmatias obscurus Gray 1828
show all | hide all
Lagenorhynchus obscurus posidonia Philippi 1893
Invalid names: Clymenia similis Gray 1868 [synonym], Delphinus breviceps Wiegmann 1840 [synonym], Delphinus breviceps Jacquinot and Pucheran 1853 [synonym], Delphinus fitzroyi Waterhouse 1838 [synonym], Lagenorhynchus similis Gray 1868 [synonym], Prodelphinus petersii Reinhardt 1889 [synonym], Tursio panope Canto 1896 [synonym]
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| N. L. Vollmer et al. 2019 | Among Sagmatias, Lagenorhynchus, and Leucopleurus species, the pigmentation of S. obscurus is most similar to that of S. obliquidens and S. australis, however only S. obscurus and S. australis overlap in distri- bution (i.e., off southern South America; Fig 1A). In contrast to S. obliquidens, the dorsal flank blaze of S. obscurus does not extend further anteriorly than mid-body (Van Waerebeek and Würsig 2018). Sagmatias obscurus can be distinguished from S. australis by the former having an extension of the light-colored thoracic patch over the eye (Reeves et al. 2002). In the southern portion of its range, S. obscurus may be confused with S. cruciger; however, the two can be differenti- ated based on the sharply defined light and dark areas, broad dorsal fin shape, and dark pigmentation behind the flipper that is characteristic of S. cruciger (Reeves et al. 2002). Additional features of S. obscurus pig- mentation are given under Coloration.
In general, the skull morphology of all four species of Sagmatias is similar, however S. obscurus and S. obliquidens can be distinguished from other Sagmatias species by having a longer rostrum, shorter brain- case, and lower ramus (Miyazaki and Shikano 1997b). Furthermore, S. obscurus is differentiated from S. obliquidens by having a narrower preorbital width and narrower width of the rostrum at midlength (Miyazaki and Shikano 1997b). Sagmatias obscurus also has fewer ver- tebrae than S. obliquidens (Miyazaki and Shikano 1997b). The distinction between S. obscurus and the other species of Sagmatias as well as all of the species in the genera Leucopleurus, Lagenorhynchus, Lissodelphis, and Cephalorhynchus is also supported by genetic data from both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA markers (Fig. 2, 3). Phylogenetic stud- ies consistently recover a close sister-species relationship between S. obscurus and S. obliquidens, but the relationship between S. obscurus and S. australis/S. cruciger is less clear and these studies often have included little to no data from the latter two species (Table 2; Harlin- Cognato and Honeycutt 2006, May-Collado and Agnarsson 2006, Agnarsson and May-Collado 2008, McGowen 2011, Banguera-Hinestroza et al. 2014a). Further genus-level taxonomic revision may be necessary for S. obscurus; however, any changes are contingent on additional data and analysis. If S. obscurus and S. obliquidens are determined to be significantly differenti- ated at the genus level from S. australis and S. cruciger, a new genus name will be needed for the former two species as no other synonyms are avail- able for S. obscurus and S. obliquidens and S. amblodon Cope, 1866 (= australis) is the type species of Sagmatias. |