New dolphin species discovered in Australia

Sep 15, 2011
Researchers in Australia have discovered that dolphin colonies living around Melbourne are a species unlike any other in the world, they revealed on Thursday.

Researchers in Australia have discovered that dolphin colonies living around Melbourne are a species unlike any other in the world, they revealed on Thursday.

The that frolic in Port Phillip Bay and the Gippsland Lakes, numbering around 150, were originally thought to be one of the two recognised bottlenose species.

But Monash University PhD researcher Kate Charlton-Robb found they were different by comparing , DNA and with specimens dating back to the early 1900s.

She has named them Tursiops australis, although they will commonly be known as the Burrunan dolphin, an Aboriginal name meaning large sea fish of the porpoise kind.

"This is an incredibly fascinating discovery as there have only been three new dolphin species formally described and recognised since the late 1800s," Charlton-Robb said of her research, published in the journal.

"What makes this even more exciting is this dolphin species has been living right under our noses, with only two known resident populations living in Port Phillip Bay and the Gippsland Lakes in Victoria state."

The research relied in part on the analysis of dolphin skulls collected and maintained by museums over the last century, particularly holdings at Museum Victoria.

Explore further: 'Killer sperm' prevents mating between worm species

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Researchers find rare hourglass dolphin

Sep 13, 2010

A rare hourglass dolphin underwent a post-mortem on Friday at Massey's Coastal-Marine Pathology Unit at Albany. It is one of only a handful of carcasses of the species ever examined by scientists.

Dolphins have ability to sense electrical signals

Jul 29, 2011

In a new study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, researchers reveal the discovery of how the Guiana dolphin, Sotalia guianensis, is able to sense electric fields of prey in the water using ...

Recommended for you

Chinese mosquitos on the Baltic Sea

38 minutes ago

The analysis of the roughly 3,000 pieces is still in its infant stage. But it is already evident that the results will be of major significance. "Amazingly often, we are finding–in addition to Asian forms–the ...

Baby zebra is latest success in research partnership

1 hour ago

The recent birth of a female Grevy's zebra foal at the Saint Louis Zoo marks another milestone in a long-running Washington University in St. Louis research partnership that is making significant contributions ...

'Killer sperm' prevents mating between worm species

19 hours ago

The classic definition of a biological species is the ability to breed within its group, and the inability to breed outside it. For instance, breeding a horse and a donkey may result in a live mule offspring, ...

Rare Sri Lankan leopards born in French zoo

23 hours ago

Two rare Sri Lankan leopard cubs have been born in a zoo in northern France, a boost for a sub-species that numbers only about 700 in the wild, the head of the facility said Tuesday.

User comments : 7

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nanobanano
2.4 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2011
LOL.

One wonders who to trust in the fields of historical geology, paleontology, and "evolutionary" biology.

After all, if something as large as a DOLPHIN can live near and AT the surface all this time and not even be recognized, I wonder how many presumed "extinct" aquatic life forms are really still alive somewhere?
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2011
Sorry I accidentally gave you a one instead of the spammer.

However I think your post was a bit wrong. The study was based on skulls which are kind of hard to see in a living animal AND it may be crap anyway as the article gave no indication of what the differences were.

Genetic testing would be rather a lot more definitive.

Ethelred
Sonhouse
5 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2011
Sorry I accidentally gave you a one instead of the spammer.

However I think your post was a bit wrong. The study was based on skulls which are kind of hard to see in a living animal AND it may be crap anyway as the article gave no indication of what the differences were.

Genetic testing would be rather a lot more definitive.

Ethelred


The article DID say they were tested genetically. Also shapes of the skull and physical traits. Three different avenues of research saying they are a different species.
Jimbaloid
5 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2011
Sorry I accidentally gave you a one instead of the spammer.


Use the 'report abuse' option for spammers - one is too high of a score.
nayTall
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2011
One wonders who to trust in the fields of historical geology, paleontology, and "evolutionary" biology.


no. one does not really wonder that.
braindead
1 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2011
Ethelred - Read the article first before commenting. Of course you could also change your handle to "Ethelnotread" ;)
Skultch
1 / 5 (1) Sep 16, 2011
LOL @ people criticizing Ethelred. He's done more for this site than all of us put together. Not that he needs me to defend him, but on the DNA thing: he read it and he knows. There's no detail in this abstract or links to more info; that's what he's talking about ("no indication what the differences were"). Unlike some, he want's to learn, not be spoon-fed or troll. Sure, we trust that the info is somewhere, but in order to discuss this with any significance, we need to know, ourselves.