|Basic info||Taxonomic history||Classification||Relationships|
|Morphology||Ecology and taphonomy||External Literature Search||Age range and collections|
Mammalia - Cetacea - Remingtonocetidae
It was assigned to Odontoceti by Benton (1993); to Archaeoceti by Bianucci and Landini (2007); to Remingtonocetoidea by Mitchell (1989), Rice (1998), Gingerich (2005) and Rice (2009); to Cetacea by Thewissen et al. (2001), Thewissen and Bajpai (2009), Uhen (2010) and Bebej et al. (2015); to Archaeoceti by Kumar and Sahni (1986), Fordyce and Barnes (1994), Fordyce et al. (1995), McKenna and Bell (1997), Fordyce and de Muizon (2001), Gingerich et al. (2001), Gingerich et al. (2001), Rice (2002), Fordyce (2003), Geisler and Sanders (2003), McLeod and Barnes (2008), Gingerich (2012) and Gao and Ni (2015); and to Cetacea by van Vliet (2004), Marx et al. (2016) and Berta (2017).
|Year||Name and author|
|1986||Remingtonocetidae Kumar and Sahni|
|1993||Remingtonocetidae Benton p. 761|
|1994||Remingtonocetidae Fordyce and Barnes p. 428 figs. Table 1|
|1995||Remingtonocetidae Fordyce et al. p. 379|
|1997||Remingtonocetidae McKenna and Bell p. 370|
|2001||Remingtonocetidae Fordyce and de Muizon p. 176|
|2001||Remingtonocetidae Gingerich et al.|
|2001||Remingtonocetidae Thewissen et al. p. 351 figs. Table 1|
|2002||Remingtonocetidae Rice p. 231 figs. Table 1|
|2003||Remingtonocetidae Fordyce p. 156 figs. Figure 9.1|
|2003||Remingtonocetidae Geisler and Sanders p. 27|
|2004||Remingtonocetidae van Vliet p. 143|
|2005||Remingtonocetidae Gingerich p. 237 figs. Table 15.1|
|2007||Remingtonocetidae Bianucci and Landini p. 45 figs. Table 2.1|
|2008||Remingtonocetidae McLeod and Barnes p. 93|
|2009||Remingtonocetidae Rice p. 235 figs. Table 1|
|2009||Remingtonocetidae Thewissen and Bajpai p. 635|
|2010||Remingtonocetidae Uhen p. 203 figs. Figure 1|
|2012||Remingtonocetidae Gingerich p. 313 figs. Figure 4|
|2015||Remingtonocetidae Bebej et al.|
|2015||Remingtonocetidae Gao and Ni p. 156 figs. Table 1|
|2016||Remingtonocetidae Marx et al. p. 98|
|2017||Remingtonocetidae 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.
|R. M. Bebej et al. 2015||Remingtonocetidae differ from all other archaeocetes in having extremely long, narrow skulls; relatively narrow supraorbital shields; small orbits; convex palates; palatine-pterygoid surfaces with prominent midline keels; laterally-positioned auditory bullae; and long mandibular sym- physes extending to or beyond the position of P3 (Kumar and Sahni, 1986; Gingerich et al., 1995a, 1998; Williams, 1998). In the postcranial skeleton, remingtonocetids are distinguished from contemporary protocetids in having relatively long cervical vertebrae, a narrower sacrum, distinctive innominates, and a femur lacking a distinct fovea capitis femoris (Gingerich et al., 1995a, 1998; Madar et al., 2002). Remingtonocetid sacra are relatively narrow and long, with a minimal biauricular breadth to sacral length ratio in the range of 0.38 to 0.49. The pakicetid Pakicetus is at the small end of this range (Madar, 2007), and the ambulocetid Ambulocetus is at the large end of this range (Madar et al., 2002). Protocetids, in contrast, have broader sacra, with a minimal biauricular breadth to sacral length ratio in the range of 0.47 to 0.76.
Remingtonocetid innominates have bladelike ilia and ischia rising sharply from the body anterior and posterior to the acetabulum. The acetabulum appears relatively large and deep due to its sharp rim, although measurements of relative size and depth do not show a clear difference from protocetids. The acetabular notch separating ends of the lunate surface within the acetabulum is narrow or closed entirely. Remingtonocetids have an acetabular notch to acetabulum diameter ratio ranging from 0.00 (closed) to 0.12, in contrast to protocetids, for which this ratio ranges from 0.28 to 0.38. Remingtonocetid femora differ from those of most other middle Eocene archaeocetes in lacking a distinct fovea capitis femoris. In addition, remingtonocetid femora have denser cortical bone than those of contemporary protocetids and consequently show less damage due to compression during burial.