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
Hi I’m in search of a travel companion, who shares the same passion as me for wildlife watching and nature...
Several mammalwatchers have recently expressed an interest in buying a thermal imaging scope and I had promised to post a...
Hi, Time to put something together again and go for a tour 🙂 Is there anyone out there who...
We are unexpectedly going to the Iberian Peninsula in June-July, hopefully for 4 weeks. Does anybody have any kind...
My Cool Green Science post on babirusa conservation. Many thanks to Jon Hall and Coke Smith for use of...
Dear All, I am trying to help organize a wildlife-viewing expedition to St. Paul and St. Matthew Islands in...
Dear All I am wrapping up a book project about mammals of California but need a few final pictures....
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.
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.