| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Carolinacetus
Taxonomy
Carolinacetus was named by Geisler et al. (2005). It was considered monophyletic by Uhen (2008) and Uhen et al. (2011).
It was assigned to Protocetinae by McLeod and Barnes (2008) and Uhen (2008); to Georgiacetinae by Gingerich et al. (2005) and Gao and Ni (2015); and to Protocetidae by Geisler et al. (2005), Bianucci and Gingerich (2011), Uhen et al. (2011), Uhen (2014), Uhen (2014), Marx et al. (2016), Berta (2017), Mourlam and Orliac (2018) and Vautrin et al. (2019).
It was assigned to Protocetinae by McLeod and Barnes (2008) and Uhen (2008); to Georgiacetinae by Gingerich et al. (2005) and Gao and Ni (2015); and to Protocetidae by Geisler et al. (2005), Bianucci and Gingerich (2011), Uhen et al. (2011), Uhen (2014), Uhen (2014), Marx et al. (2016), Berta (2017), Mourlam and Orliac (2018) and Vautrin et al. (2019).
Species
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 2005 | Carolinacetus Geisler et al. p. 6 figs. 1-24 |
| 2005 | Carolinacetus Gingerich et al. p. 200 |
| 2008 | Carolinacetus McLeod and Barnes p. 93 |
| 2008 | Carolinacetus Uhen p. 560 |
| 2011 | Carolinacetus Bianucci and Gingerich p. 1174 |
| 2011 | Carolinacetus Uhen et al. p. 966 figs. Figure 10 |
| 2014 | Carolinacetus Uhen p. 211 |
| 2015 | Carolinacetus Gao and Ni p. 156 figs. Table 1 |
| 2016 | Carolinacetus Marx et al. p. 100 |
| 2017 | Carolinacetus Berta p. 159 |
| 2018 | Carolinacetus Mourlam and Orliac |
| 2019 | Carolinacetus Vautrin et al. |
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. †Carolinacetus Geisler et al. 2005
show all | hide all
†Carolinacetus gingerichi Geisler et al. 2005
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| M. D. Uhen 2008 | Carolinacetus can be distinguished from other protocetids by the presence of a posterodorsal tongue of the petrosal that is exposed between the exoccipital and the squamosal with the skull in posterior view and a mandible with a steep ascending process and a deeply descending ventral margin posteriorly (Geisler et al. 2005). | |
| M. J. Mourlam and M. J. Orliac 2018 | The petrosal of ?Carolinacetus sp. is charac- terized by a shallow, bowl-shaped fossa for the tensor tympani muscle. In addition, ?Carolinacetus sp. shares with Carolinacetus gingerichi: (1) a thin anteroventral side of the internal auditory meatus riddle with foramina, and (2) the presence of tuberosities 4 and 5 forming a sub- circular pit on the dorsal surface of the involucrum.
|