| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Aegyptocetus
Taxonomy
Aegyptocetus was named by Bianucci and Gingerich (2011). Its type is Aegyptocetus tarfa.
It was assigned to Protocetinae by Gao and Ni (2015); and to Protocetidae by Bianucci and Gingerich (2011), Uhen (2014), Marx et al. (2016) and Berta (2017).
It was assigned to Protocetinae by Gao and Ni (2015); and to Protocetidae by Bianucci and Gingerich (2011), Uhen (2014), Marx et al. (2016) and Berta (2017).
Species
A. tarfa (type species)
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 2011 | Aegyptocetus Bianucci and Gingerich p. 1175 |
| 2014 | Aegyptocetus Uhen p. 1030 |
| 2015 | Aegyptocetus Gao and Ni p. 156 figs. Table 1 |
| 2016 | Aegyptocetus Marx et al. p. 100 |
| 2017 | Aegyptocetus Berta p. 159 |
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.
G. †Aegyptocetus Bianucci and Gingerich 2011
show all | hide all
†Aegyptocetus tarfa Bianucci and Gingerich 2011
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| G. Bianucci and P. D. Gingerich 2011 | Aegyptocetus tarfa differs from all protocetids except possibly Babiacetus indicus in having a cranium with a downwardly deflected frontal shield and rostrum of the skull (clinorhynchy; see below). Aegyptocetus differs in having a dentary with the mandibular condyle positioned well below the level of the lower cheek teeth, an ascending ramus deflected dorsally and medially to wrap around the braincase, and lower molars with the principle cusps angled backward (features related to cranial clinorhynchy). The protocetid Babiacetus has a cranium with a downwardly deflected frontal and rostrum, suggesting clinorhynchy like that documented here for Aegyptocetus, but deformation during burial means that clinorhynchy in Babiacetus cannot be quantified reliably. Aegyptocetus resembles Babiacetus in having a fused mandibular symphysis, but differs in having transversely broader upper posterior premolars (P3–4) and molars (M1–3). Upper premolars lack the well-developed posterobasal cusp present on P3 and the large metacone present on P4 in Babiacetus. There is no distinct protocone cusp on upper posterior premolars or molars of either Aegyptocetus or Babiacetus, but Aegyptocetus retains a prominent protocone lobe on the crowns of P3–M3, supported by a separate root. This lobe is medial, or slightly posterior of medial, relative to the paracone on P3–M3 of Aegyptocetus, whereas it is medial, or slightly posterior of medial relative to the posterior edge of the crown in Babiacetus. Cheek tooth occlusion in Aegyptocetus is more complex, like that of primitive protocetids, whereas cheek tooth occlusion in Babiacetus is simpler, more sectorial, and more derived. |