A new paper analyzed the systematics of Delphinus and found that D. capensis is not a valid species. Apparently, there are still two species: the long-billed D. bairdii, pretty much endemic to California, and the very widespread and variable D. delphis, with at least three subspecies (including dwarf D. d. ponticus in the Black Sea and very long-beaked D. d. tropicalis in the Indian Ocean).
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0140251
1. There is a proposal (Hope et al. 2019) to split pygmy shrew (the North American one) into two...
Hi all I’m thinking about making a trip to Israel in two or three weeks time and was hoping...
The ultimate mammal watching lens: Nikon 500 mm F5.6 PF ED VR Maybe some of you remember that I...
1. A new paper proposes novel classification of cottontails in SW USA and N Mexico. I’m attaching the distribution...
Two more trip reports today More proof, as if I needed it, that I really do need to visit...
First post so here goes – Best mammal watching experience recently with my 10 yr old grand-daughter who was...
Jon Asked me to re-post my last few posts from the old forum so that they don’t get lost...
1. A new genus and species of mole has been described from Tibet. The location is near the main...
Genetically Welsh, spiritually Australian, currently in New York City. I've also lived and worked in London, Canberra, Paris and Lusaka, and visited over 100 countries. There's more here.
To clarify – is the D. tropicalis of this study the same form as that named D. capensis in (e.g.) Shirihai et al?
I meant capensis – sorry for the typo.
Ah, thanks – I had wondered if maybe there had been a nomenclatural change. Really interesting conclusions in that paper, thanks for posting it.
Not terribly surprising, but part of me is disappointed that there was no nuclear data included, some of which was previously sampled. Phylogenies based on a single gene can be inaccurate, as acknowledged by the authors themselves, and Amaral DID sample some nuclear DNA in her study, so at least some sequences were available.
The morphology was almost an afterthought of this study. They could have at least done some basic statistics on the data, which would have probably supported their conclusions. As someone who is into cranial morphometrics, its a bit disappointing to see it’s application completely ignored.
I agree, with nuclear data these conclusions might still be overtuned. I find it a bit suspicious that in some places two morphotypes occur together.
that is my concern as well. Rigorous morphometric analysis would be key here. After all it’s possible that the two “morphs” actually show greater variation, and the very little morphologic data they showed in the paper may suggest intermediate forms, which basically just means that the morphs are extreme endpoints in variation and not significantly different.