Talk:Oceanic dolphin

message: The genus Pepinocephalia and Peponocephalia AND Peponocephala are propably all the same. However only one is correct. Google suggest  cetacea, which is taken from Rice (1998) which is the standard in the field. That only mentions Peponocephala. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:45, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As does Lyall Watson's 1981 Sea Guide to Whales of the World (). Other terms are likely mistakes rather than alternatives. Anjouli 12:56, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: According to the article, the taxonomy of Delphinids is likely to change in the near future. Pending the results of future studies, how is the current consensus on the taxonomy of oceanic dolphins? In other words, how are the Delphinidae subdivided into tribes? Or are the interfamily relations in fact too uncertain to provide realistic tribal affinities of the respective genera? DaMatriX (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the following two tables in  and I was about to replace the list in the article but I got confused.  Any opinions? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

text: agree with Delphininae (Tursiops+Stenella+Delphinus+Sousa) and Stenoninae (Sotalia+Steno). --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

text: According to , "it is not yet possible to ascertain the evolutionary relationships of all Delphinidae subfamilies, nor the monophyly of Lissodelphininae, which has been questioned[10,37]."  Ref 37 is  and according to them: "Overall, our study provides strong support for the monophyly of the subfamily Lissodelphininae and the polyphyly of the genus Lagenorhynchus."  I'm confused. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the current state of delphinid phylogeny is a bit of a mess. It's one of those instances where the radiation of the group occurred so quickly that it's very difficult to put any kind of pattern on it. I do know that at least some of LeDuc's 1999 work has been challenged since (see here, for example), but I'm not sure how big of a change it makes to the above - a lot of it seems to be in the finer detail. Anaxial (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I missed your comment.  And yes, I completely agree this is messy.  Would you agree that the two lists above are better than the present list? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it looks so. While I suspect there is more upheaval to come, it may not be at the subfamily level, and, anyway, we can hardly include it if it hasn't happened yet! It would appear, from what I can tell, that people are still using LeDuc's paper as a starting point, even if they don't agree with it in every respect. Just remember not to italicise the subfamilies :) Anaxial (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the feedback.  IRL is keeping me busy, but I feel LeDuc 1999 will do, with some additions and restrictions.  I'll return to this... ---Fama Clamosa (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  But I had an overdose of genetics already.  Figure 4 in  is black magic in my world.  I will start all over with a copy of "Genetics for Dummies". --Fama Clamosa (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy: tribal relations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oceanic dolphin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151015221118/http://www.atuna.com/NewsArchive/ViewArticle.asp?ID=12719 to http://www.atuna.com/NewsArchive/ViewArticle.asp?ID=12719
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Both quotes are present in the article.. (?)
"Several species exhibit sexual dimorphism; the males are larger than females."
"Several species exhibit sexual dimorphism, with the females being larger than the males." Romantical (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably just an error born of fast typing when the article was expanded back in 2015 by . Since the source states that Cephalorhynchus along with some other individual species exhibit sexual dimorphism; with males are larger than females, I'll adjust the text accordingly, thanks for noting this. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual dimorphism contradiction? 

message: Would it be useful to add extinct taxon to the article? There are some genera that have wikipedia articles (Australodelphis, for example), so it makes sense to mention them under taxonomy. Kitch (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinct taxon