The Zoochat Photographic Guide To Cetaceans

Yeah, Artiodactyla and Cetacea.

 

No, as @TeaLovingDave explained, if you remove cetaceans from Artiodactyla you have to remove ungulates such as hippos as well that are closer to cetaceans than other ungulates.

I refused to include Cetacea for a long time as well, but eventually came to the conclusion that that splitting just doesn't hold up against the evidence.

~Thylo

 

Yeah taxonomy is weird. But there in lies the difference between Linnaean taxonomy and phylogenetic bracketing. (Before I continue, please someone correct me if I'm wrong). For Linnaean taxonomy, if you look similar, then you must be related, but if you don't look similar then you must not be related. However, phylogenetic bracketing (which is more accurate to my understanding) takes into account evolutionary history. For example Linnaean taxonomy would argue that since crocodilians, sphenodonts, squmates, and turtles all have scales, lay eggs, and require warmth for activity, then they must be more closely related to each other than they are to any other extant animal. But in walks phylogenetic bracketing and he/she (we can't assume) says "No, no, no, you got it all wrong kid." If we take a look at the fossil record, we'll find that the American alligator is more closely related to the house sparrow than it is to the Komodo dragon. The two belong to Archosauria. (We also find out the house sparrow is technically a dinosaur, which is awesome). Same thing with artiodactyls, based on physically appearance wouldn't one assume the hippo is more closely related to the pig than it is to a dolphin? Well not according to phylogenetic bracketing.

 

@Hipporex the fact that birds are dinosaurs and thus birds are reptiles truly was a hard pill for me to swallow as well but really it does make sense.

~Thylo

 

Here's a nice video on cetacean evolution:
I'm guessing that the animals that stayed on land became the hippos?

 

Well that only follows if dinosaurs were reptiles. I've been under the semi-educated impression for some years that they probably weren't, despite being 'reptilian'.

 

I'm pretty sure scientists now refer to them as "sauropsids." Reptilia is a term used in Linnaean taxonomy and applies to all living and recently extinct crocodilians, sphenodonts, squmates, and turtles. Sauropsida is used in phylogenetic bracketing and can definied as something along the lines of "the least inclusive clade that includes Terrapene carolina and Milleretta rubidgei." Using a Linnaean taxonomy term when talking about prehistoric animals can get confusing because definitions can overlap. For example, under Linnaean taxonomy, a bird is essentially defined as any animals that lays eggs, has feathers, and is warm-blooded. Well then would Velociraptor mongoliensis be considered a bird? But the thing is it obviously isn't, it is a non-avian dinosaur. Linnaean taxonomy works great for extant and recently extinct animals, but I don't think it be used when prehistoric life comes into play. (I hope this makes sense).

 

I could be convinced of that to be honest.

(PS @Chlidonias I'm so sorry if this has to be moved to that taxonomy thread because all of the thread lately seem to be breaking out into taxonomic debate/discussion )

~Thylo

 

It's infinitely more complicated that this. Linneus was the first exhaustive taxonom, with quite a number of non-exhaustive taxonoms preceeding him and many thousands of taxonoms that followed later until today, and since almost every taxonom have its own cladograms, you cannot divide taxonomic opinions into "Linnean taxonomy and phylogenetic bracketing", because there are hundreds of thousands of different taxonomies, most of which are phylogenetic bracketing, even when many contradict each other (the Artiodactyla cladogram is a good example, as the different branches of it since the inclusion of Cetacea in it have been arranged in many different ways according to different authors).
By other side, yes Linnaeus, according to the knowledge available at his epoch, rely mostly in morphology, tough not completely (Moths also have scales, lay eggs, and require warmth for activity, but are not considered reptiles). For example if he would consider only morphology, he would had included cetaceans into fishes. Posterior authors, much of which are of the Golden Age of the science and taxonomy (more or less 19th and 20th centuries) constructed very valid taxonomic opinions analyzing exhaustively each trait available, including obviously fossils, as well as biochemicals, ethology, biogeography and of course morphology and, when started to be available, also DNA. The problem is that these exhaustive, accurated and true scientific theories have been rejected in recent times by those that think that DNA is the only way to classify things, and for that one don't need to be a knowlegdeable scientific, it's enough with be a good informatic enough for run a program that does the cladograms.

 

A species not illustrated before in the Gallery appeared recently, sadly it's just a skeleton, but maybe it could be added to the thread.
Hubbs' beaked whale skeleton at HSU - ZooChat

 

Uploaded a picture of Australian Snubfin Dolphin to the Aussie Wildlife gallery.

 

I set out to change this on my most recent trip and was successful on two different whale watches! Photos now posted in both the US and Canadian Wildlife galleries (along with some other cetacean goodies).

 

Lucky you! Admins can insert the best photo in the relevant place (I can't edit older messages).