| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Sagmatias cruciger
Taxonomy
Delphinus cruciger was named by Quoy and Gaimard (1824). It is extant. Its type specimen is none designated.
It was recombined as Sagmatias cruciger 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 cruciger by Trouessart (1904), Scheffer and Rice (1963), Hershkovitz (1966), Rice (1998), Mead and Brownell (2005) and Jefferson (2021).
It was recombined as Sagmatias cruciger 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 cruciger by Trouessart (1904), Scheffer and Rice (1963), Hershkovitz (1966), Rice (1998), Mead and Brownell (2005) and Jefferson (2021).
Synonyms
|
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 1824 | Delphinus albigena Quoy and Gaimard |
| 1824 | Delphinus cruciger Quoy and Gaimard |
| 1826 | Delphinus bivittatus Lesson and Garnot |
| 1828 | Phocaena homei Smith |
| 1829 | Delphinus albigena Fischer p. 506 |
| 1829 | Delphinus cruciger Fischer p. 506 |
| 1829 | Delphinus bivittatus Fischer p. 510 |
| 1850 | Delphinus obscurus Gray |
| 1893 | Phocaena dorbignyi Philippi |
| 1904 | Delphinus albigena Trouessart p. 765 |
| 1904 | Lagenorhynchus cruciger Trouessart p. 767 |
| 1915 | Lagenorhynchus wilsoni Lillie |
| 1963 | Lagenorhynchus cruciger Scheffer and Rice p. 6 |
| 1966 | Lagenorhynchus cruciger Hershkovitz p. 62 |
| 1998 | Lagenorhynchus cruciger Rice p. 115 |
| 1999 | Sagmatias cruciger LeDuc et al. p. 639 figs. Figure 2 |
| 2005 | Lagenorhynchus cruciger Mead and Brownell p. 730 |
| 2013 | Sagmatias cruciger Perrin et al. p. 571 figs. Table 1 |
| 2019 | Sagmatias cruciger Vollmer et al. |
| 2021 | Lagenorhynchus cruciger Jefferson p. 46 |
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 cruciger Quoy and Gaimard 1824
show all | hide all
Invalid names: Delphinus albigena Quoy and Gaimard 1824 [synonym], Delphinus bivittatus Lesson and Garnot 1826 [synonym], Delphinus obscurus Gray 1850 [synonym], Lagenorhynchus wilsoni Lillie 1915 [synonym], Phocaena dorbignyi Philippi 1893 [synonym], Phocaena homeii Smith 1828 [synonym]
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| N. L. Vollmer et al. 2019 | Sagmatias 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. |