MDD splits off these into Sagmatias
{in: ["Lagenorhynchus australis"], out: ["Sagmatias australis"]},
{in: ["Lagenorhynchus cruciger"], out: ["Sagmatias cruciger"]},
{in: ["Lagenorhynchus obliquidens"], out: ["Sagmatias obliquidens"]},
{in: ["Lagenorhynchus obscurus"], out: ["Sagmatias obscurus"]},
should we split or deviate?
@bobby23 @jwidness

Ha, it was my friend Rick LeDuc who proposed placing this genus into Sagmatias based on early mtDNA work (LeDuc et al. 1999). I think for the time being, Lagenorhynchus is still the accepted nomenclature. The debate within the Society of Marine Mammalogy is summarized below. Source: https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/

"The genus Lagenorhynchus is widely considered a polyphyletic taxon containing morphologically convergent species (Cipriano 1997, LeDuc et al. 1999, McGowen 2011, Banguera-Hinestroza et al. 2014, Vollmer et al. 2019). Vollmer et al. (2019) provided a detailed review of the relationships among members of the genus Lagenorhynchus and their relationship to Cephalorhynchus and Lissodelphis. Results continue to support the polyphyletic nature of the genus Lagenorhynchus and multiple morphological and genetic analyses indicate that L. albirostris and L. acutus are evolutionarily distinct from the other members of all three genera. Vollmer et al. (2019) recommended revision of the genus sensu Leduc et al. (1999), placing L. obscurus, L. obliquidens, L. australis and L. cruciger into the genus Sagmatias, L. acutus into the genus Leucopleurus and leaving L. albirostris in a monotypic genus Lagenorhynchus. While a majority of committee members supported the changes proposed by Vollmer et al. (2019), a 2/3 majority of voting members was not reached. Primary objection to the changes focused on remaining uncertainties in some relationships and the potential confusion that may be created if the proposed changes require further revision in the near future. At issue are 1) the conflicting support among data sets for a sister-taxa relationship between L. albirostris and L. acutus (which would obviate the need for Leucopleurus), and 2) evidence that australis and cruciger should be included in Cephalorhynchus (which would necessitate a new genus for obliquidens and obscurus, as australis is the type species for the genus Sagmatias). Therefore, the taxonomy list retains all species in Lagenorhynchus, recognizing that the current taxonomy does not reflect the evolutionary distinctiveness of L. albirostris and L. acutus. Next steps in unraveling the taxonomy of these dolphins will need to involve robust datasets that include all Lagenorhynchus and Cephalorhynchus species. Harlin-Cognato (2010) recognized L. obscurus posidonia (Peru/Chile).

It has been noted repeatedly, most recently by Perrin et al. (2013), that the delphinine genera Stenella and Tursiops are paraphyletic and that at present there is no molecular or morphological basis for satisfactory resolution of phylogenetic relationships in the subfamily. A possible solution would be to return all the species in Tursiops, Sousa, and Stenella to Delphinus, the genus in which they were first described, and place Lagenodelphis hosei there as well. However, considering that this would obscure the clear close relationship of the present Sousa and Tursiops species, the status quo is maintained here provisionally, pending the outcome of more definitive morphological and molecular studies. Eventually a more natural classification will emerge."

So you want to go back to Lagenorhynchus sensu lato? e.g.
Lagenorhynchus, Sagmatias, Leucopleurus -> Lagenorhynchus