Taxonomy and distribution of bottlenose dolphins (genus <i>Tursiops</i>) in Australian waters: an osteological clarification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species relationships in the bottlenose dolphin (genus Tursiops Gervais, 1855) are controversial. We carried out a comprehensive osteological study of 264 skulls, including type specimens, and 90 postcranial skeletons of Tursiops spp. to address taxonomic uncertainties in Australia using two-dimensional (2D) measurements, and three-dimensional geometric morphometrics (3DGM), tooth and vertebral counts, and categorical data. Analyses provided support for the presence of two forms, aligned to the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus (Ehrenberg, 1832)) and the common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821)), including type specimens. The Burrunan dolphin (Tursiops australis Charlton-Robb, Gershwin, Thompson, Austin, Owen and McKechnie, 2011) fell well within T. truncatus for both 2D and 3DGM methods. Thirteen Tursiops spp. specimens, no T. australis specimens, were of intermediate size (2D) and could not be assigned to either species. For 3DGM data, there was a strong allometric influence and few non-allometric differences between species. Length and width of the cranium and rostrum were important discriminating variables. Tursiops aduncus was smaller, had more teeth, fewer vertebrae, and more erosion on the pterygoids and frontals than T. truncatus. Overall cranium shape was round in T. aduncus and angular in T. truncatus. Skull length of T. aduncus was smaller in low than in high latitudes. This study highlights the importance of large sample size, multiple analytical methods, and extensive geographical coverage when undertaking taxonomic studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".