Basic info Taxonomic history Classification Relationships
Morphology Ecology and taphonomy External Literature Search Age range and collections

Remingtonocetidae

Mammalia - Artiodactyla - Remingtonocetidae

Synonymy list
YearName and author
1986Remingtonocetidae Kumar and Sahni
1989Remingtonocetidae Mitchell
1993Remingtonocetidae Benton p. 761
1994Remingtonocetidae Fordyce and Barnes p. 428 figs. Table 1
1995Remingtonocetidae Fordyce et al. p. 379
1997Remingtonocetidae McKenna and Bell p. 370
1998Remingtonocetidae Rice
2001Remingtonocetidae Fordyce and de Muizon p. 176
2001Remingtonocetidae Gingerich et al.
2001Remingtonocetidae Thewissen et al. p. 351 figs. Table 1
2002Remingtonocetidae Rice p. 231 figs. Table 1
2003Remingtonocetidae Fordyce p. 156 figs. Figure 9.1
2003Remingtonocetidae Geisler and Sanders p. 27
2005Remingtonocetidae Gingerich p. 237 figs. Table 15.1
2007Remingtonocetidae Bianucci and Landini p. 45 figs. Table 2.1
2008Remingtonocetidae McLeod and Barnes p. 93
2009Remingtonocetidae Rice p. 235 figs. Table 1
2009Remingtonocetidae Thewissen and Bajpai p. 635
2010Remingtonocetidae Uhen p. 203 figs. Figure 1
2012Remingtonocetidae Gingerich p. 313 figs. Figure 4
2015Remingtonocetidae Bebej et al.
2015Remingtonocetidae Gao and Ni p. 156 figs. Table 1
2016Remingtonocetidae Marx et al. p. 98
2017Remingtonocetidae Berta p. 159

Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data

RankNameAuthor
kingdomAnimalia()
Triploblastica
Nephrozoa
Deuterostomia
phylumChordataHaeckel 1847
subphylumVertebrata
superclassGnathostomata
Osteichthyes()
Sarcopterygii
subclassDipnotetrapodomorpha(Nelson 2006)
subclassTetrapodomorpha()
Tetrapoda()
Reptiliomorpha
Anthracosauria
Batrachosauria()
RankNameAuthor
Cotylosauria()
Amniota
Synapsida()
Therapsida()
infraorderCynodontia()
Epicynodontia
infraorderEucynodontia
Probainognathia
Mammaliamorpha
Mammaliaformes
classMammalia
orderArtiodactyla()
Cetacea()
familyRemingtonocetidae
familyRemingtonocetidae

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.

Diagnosis
ReferenceDiagnosis
R. M. Bebej et al. 2015Remingtonocetidae 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.