Matches in DBpedia 2015-10 for { ?s ?p "The Araguaian river dolphin or Araguaian boto (Inia araguaiaensis) is a South American river dolphin population whose identification as a species distinct from the Amazon river dolphin (Inia geoffrensis) was announced in 2014. It is native to the Araguaia–Tocantins basin of Brazil.As of October 2014, I. araguaiaensis is not recognized as a separate species by the Society for Marine Mammalogy. Their Committee on Taxonomy made these comments regarding the decision to not include I. araguaiaensis as an independent species: "Inia araguaiaensis, was described by Hrbek et al. (2014). However, this study only examined samples from two extremes of the distribution of Inia so is it unclear if the molecular differences observed represented real species-level separation or were due to sampling from two locations separated by a large distance. Diagnostic osteological differences were also reported. However, because this was based on the examination of very few specimens (only 2 for the new species and only 9 for I. geoffrensis), the authors’ conclusions are very concerning.""@en }
Showing triples 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 triples per page.
- Araguaian_river_dolphin abstract "The Araguaian river dolphin or Araguaian boto (Inia araguaiaensis) is a South American river dolphin population whose identification as a species distinct from the Amazon river dolphin (Inia geoffrensis) was announced in 2014. It is native to the Araguaia–Tocantins basin of Brazil.As of October 2014, I. araguaiaensis is not recognized as a separate species by the Society for Marine Mammalogy. Their Committee on Taxonomy made these comments regarding the decision to not include I. araguaiaensis as an independent species: "Inia araguaiaensis, was described by Hrbek et al. (2014). However, this study only examined samples from two extremes of the distribution of Inia so is it unclear if the molecular differences observed represented real species-level separation or were due to sampling from two locations separated by a large distance. Diagnostic osteological differences were also reported. However, because this was based on the examination of very few specimens (only 2 for the new species and only 9 for I. geoffrensis), the authors’ conclusions are very concerning."".