|Basic info||Taxonomic history||Classification||Relationships|
|Morphology||Ecology and taphonomy||External Literature Search||Age range and collections|
Mammalia - Artiodactyla - Ziphiidae
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.
|O. Lambert et al. 2009||Small ziphiid, with a skull size close to the smallest species of Mesoplodon, differing from all Recent ziphiids and Ninoziphius in the abrupt elevation of the dorsal margin of the mandible towards the coronoid process and from all Recent ziphiids in having unfused cervical vertebrae c3-c7 (mandible unknown in other fossil taxa and cervicals only partly known in Archaeoziphius).
Differs from Berardiinae in having a distinct constriction of the ascending process of the premaxilla, supraoccipital roughly reaching the top of the vertex, and absence of a nodular area of the vertex posterior to the nasals. It further differs from Archaeoziphius in having the atlas fused with the axis.
Differs from Nenga in having a narrower rostrum base, distinct constriction of the ascending process of the premaxilla, and smaller nasals; from Tasmacetus in having a wider and shallower antorbital notch, narrower rostrum base, thin premaxillary crest, strong transverse compression of the frontals on the vertex, and relatively smaller temporal fossa; from Messapicetus, Ninoziphius, and Tasmacetus in the absence of a complete series of functional maxillary teeth; from Ninoziphius and Tasmacetus in the short mandibular symphysis, no more than 20% of the mandible length; from Berardius, Ninoziphius, and Tasmacetus in the triangular section of the symphyseal portion of the mandible; and from Ninoziphius in the periotic bearing a wide semi-circular posterior bullar facet and a more robust anterior process.
Differs from Pterocetus and Xhosacetus in the absence of a mesorostral ossification of the vomer (possibly age or sex-related) and a dorsoventrally lower rostrum; from Pterocetus in the shallower and narrower antorbital notch, premaxillary fora- men located posterior to the antorbital notch; and from Xhosacetus in the narrower preorbital process (in dorsal view), roughly flat dorsal surface of the maxilla on the supraorbital process, and shorter nasals.
Differs from Hyperoodontinae in lacking a deep anteromedial excavation of the nasals; from Hyperoodontinae, except Khoikhoicetus, in having the premaxillary crest transversely directed; and from Khoikhoicetus in the absence of a mesorostral ossifica- tion of the vomer, thicker premaxillary crest, shorter nasal, and posteriorly convex nasofrontal suture.
Differs from Ziphiinae in having the premaxillary crest transversely directed and a long portion of the nasal in contact with the premaxilla; from Beneziphius, Caviziphius, Choneziphius, Messapicetus, Tusciziphius, and Ziphirostrum in the lack of a firm dorsomedial contact between the premaxillae on the rostrum; from Beneziphius, Messapicetus, Ziphirostrum, and Ziphius in the absence of a prenarial basin; and from Izikoziphius, Tusciziphius, and Ziphius in the distinctly lower vertex with shorter nasals.