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
This made me smile… I’m glad that there are too few mammalogists around to get mentioned 😉 http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/herpetology.png
Hi! I’m new to this Forum. I am a birdwatcher from Mexico with an interest in mammals. I need...
Hi all It looks like my summer trip is going to be a joint wildlife watching/walking trip, in Europe,...
Hi all, Next week I’ll be visiting the Grand Tetons for a number of days. I’m particularly keen to...
Our main vacation this year was planned around attending a week-long workshop on bat monitoring techniques, held in southeast...
A cool citizen science opportunity if anyone is going to be near Washington State next month: Monitor spotted bats.
Hello mammal watchers. The tour company NozoMojo runs wildlife focused tours on small ships. We have a few...
1. Apparently, a breeding area of pygmy right whales has been located: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/1814232X.2013.769903#.UZRqEsqNDbQ 2. There is a nice listserve...
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.