Morphometric analysis of Chilean blue whales and implications for their taxonomy
Abstract In the Southern Hemisphere, blue whales are currently divided into two subspecies, Antarctic blue whales ( Balaenoptera musculus intermedia ) and pygmy blue whales ( B. m. brevicauda ), but there is some debate about whether Chilean blue whales should also be considered as a separate subspe...
| Published in: | Marine Mammal Science |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mms.12625 https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fmms.12625 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/mms.12625 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.1111/mms.12625 |
| Summary: | Abstract In the Southern Hemisphere, blue whales are currently divided into two subspecies, Antarctic blue whales ( Balaenoptera musculus intermedia ) and pygmy blue whales ( B. m. brevicauda ), but there is some debate about whether Chilean blue whales should also be considered as a separate subspecies. Here, we provide novel morphometric data to directly address this taxonomic question from a biological survey of 60 blue whales taken during the 1965/1966 Chilean whaling season. The data show that maximum body length and mean body length of both sexually mature females and males for Chilean blue whales are intermediate between pygmy and Antarctic blue whales; and that fluke‐anus lengths of Chilean blue whales are significantly different from pygmy blue whales, but not necessarily from Antarctic blue whales. There is also some support from the data that snout‐eye measurements are different among all three groups. These data provide further confirmation that Chilean blue whales are a distinct population requiring separate management from other blue whale populations, and are also consistent with suggestions that Chilean blue whales are not the same subspecies as pygmy blue whales. |
|---|