In Memory of
Remington Kellogg
(969
SY» Mammalo gist
bo DS YEP E
Low Paleontologist 834
ae
‘me AAS
Mich
Te bs ial
an.
DPA)
0 Uso
wre iroONTAN INSTITUTION.
UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
OF THE
UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
No. 36.
5
CONTRIBUTIONS 10 THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE CETACEANS,
A REVIEW OF THE FAMILY DELPHINIDA:
BY
FREDERICK W. TRUE.
er New ae eo ae
WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
1889,
ADVERTISEMENT.
The present publication (Bulletin No. 36) is the forty-seventh of a
series of papers intended to illustrate the collections belonging to the
United States, and constituting the National Museum, of which the
Smithsonian Institution was placed in charge by the act of Congress
of August 10, 1846. .
The publicatious of the National Museum consist of two series—the
B letins, of which this is No. 36 in continuous series, and the Proceed-
ings, of which the eleventh volume is now in press.
The volumes of Proceedings are printed, signature by signature, each
issue having its own date, and a small edition of each signature is dis-
tributed to libraries promptly after its publication.
Full lists of the publications of the Museum may be found in the cur-
rent catalogues of the publications of the Smithsonian Institution.
Papers intended for publication in the Proceedings and Bulletins of
the National *” seum are referred to the Committee on Publications, con-
sisting of the tollowing members: T. H. Bean, A. Howard Clark (editor),
Otis T. Mason, John Murdoch, Leonhard Stejneger, Frederick W. True,
and Lester F. Ward.
S. P. LANGLEY,
- Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.
WASHINGTON, February 25, 1889.
vs
eos
fico. Te AUNTRIBUTIONS TO THE NATURAL TISTORY OF THE CETACEANS.
if : | C-
a <
ZF
A REVIEW
OF THE
PANTY DELPHINID Ag
BY
ERE BRECK W. TRUS,
Curator of the Department of Mammals, United States National Musewm.
>
WITH FORTY-SEVEN PLATES. ae” co
7 PRs : Parr. ©
oy Ss KELLOGG ad &* ‘a
7 1 a ae | NI
REMIN GTON
IBRARY OF
eer to ey OY NA A TT
MARINE MAM!
WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
syle 3
PREFACE.
More than four years ago the writer formed a determination to pre-
pare a monograph of the species of Dolphins which occur on the coasts
of North America. It immediately became apparent, however, that a
proper comparison of the species described respectively by European
and American naturalists could not be made without an examination of .
the types. A large proportion of the species of the family were estab-
lished by Gray, whose descriptions are for the most part too brief and
vague to serve as the basis of critical comparisons, while the descrip-
tions of some other writers on the subject are almost equally insufficient.
Such being the condition of the literature, I resolved to visit the
museums of Europe and to examine all the type specimens to which I
could gain access. Professor Baird, the late Director of the Museum,
very kindly consented to my being absent during the winter of 1883-84,
and I accordingly spent about four months in England and on the con-
tinent of Europe in the study of the specimens in question.
During this visit I became deeply indebted for courtesies shown me by
the authorities of the different museums. I wish especially to acknowl-
edge the kind attentions of Prof. William H. Flower, who not only
gave me free access to the collections of the Royal College of Surgeons,
which were at that time under his charge, but furnished me much valu-
able information, and, in addition, placed in my hands the proof-sheets
of his then unpublished paper on the Delphinide, to which I shall have
frequent occasion to refer in the following pages. Acknowledgment is
also especially due to Dr. Albert Giinther and Oldfield Thomas, esq., of
the British Museum; Prof. J. W. Clarke, of Cambridge, and Prof. H.
N. Moseley, of Oxford; Dr. George E. Dobson, of Netley; Thomas J.
Moore, esq., of the Liverpool Free Public Museum; Thomas Southwell,
esq., of the Norwich Museum; Prof. H. Paul Gervais and Prof. Paul
Fischer, of the Muséum @’Histoire Naturelle, Paris; Dr. F. A. Jentinck,
of the Leyden Museum; and Prof. P. J. Van Beneden, of Louvain.
In the course of my investigations I examined and measured the
majority of the types of Gray, Cuvier, Gervais, Schlegel, and other
Kvglish, French, and Dutch naturalists, together with numerous other
Specimens. Basing my opinions on the results of this study, I shall
venture to pass in review the species of the different genera of the
family, giving little attention to the genera themselves.
5
6 PREFACE.
The genera Orca and Orcella are not touched upon in this paper,
The species of the latter genus need no elucidation. In the case of
Orca, the material which I gathered is scanty, and I abstain from dis-
cussing it for fear of adding to, rather than lessening, the confusion in
which the genus is involved. Many additional facts must be obtained
before even a tolerably satisfactory account of the killers can be written.
In conclusion it is necessary that I should say a few words regarding
Professor Flower’s paper “‘On the Characters and Divisions of the
Family Delphinide ” (Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1883). As I have already
stated, the proof-sheets of this valuable essay were very kindly placed
in my hands by the author at the outset of my studies, and I have un-
doubtedly been influenced, to a great extent, by the opinions therein
expressed. The grounds covered by this essay and my own, however,
are somewhat different. Regarding his work, Professor Flower writes:
It is, however, not so much to specific distinctions that this research has been
directed, as to discover the mutual relations of the different modifications of the Dol-
phin type to one another, and their association into groups which may be considered
(following the custom adopted in the arrangement of other groups) of generic value.*
My own work, on the contrary, has been directed not at all toward
the distinction of genera, but rather toward the determination of species.
I have accepted the generic divisions employed by Professor Flower
for the most part without alteration, as the basis of my work.
* Flower: Proc, Zool. Soc, London, 1888, p. 469.
SYSTEMATIC INDEX.
Page.
INTRODUCTION:
Remarkston thedistinetion Of Species! ser 212,2 leet weiss awe wee ow aoeteeioen 9
INPOASTIME MON LSet ce = yaw. cic cee. «nino. 'e Stsimetale ee sialereia/s se» wis/cjorm) Sajelorsjafaurctiorsears 12
PAM Re wl altl OM Stee ete meee apis sal ointeteia re crete sealete later ommata ew oat orat andy win ete ato usieslefncimeine 12
Part J—REVIEW OF THE SPECIES.
Part II—SYNOPSIS OF THE SPECIES:
Artificial key to the species, based on external characters ....-..-...----- 151
Artificial key to the species, based on cranial characters........-..--.---- 152
Review. pee 5 Review. BYTE
Page. Page.
Subfamily DELPHININAE :
iSotalia geet cette ota 13 153
PadamMlle sa cae. « 13 154
lentiginosa .......-. 15 155
guianensis ........- 17 155
brasiliensis....-.... 17 155
TEE, 1H) 6 Sea Ne 156
UIC MERA S Soe ate ielaiae cre 17 155
Ae UN) Ae eee 17 156
pluMibeakesssessese= 21 153
SINGNSIS) jee eee ee 23 153
Steno eeses.ce cos snc ce. 23 156
MONULACUS/2 oer se eens 24 157
perspicillatus.....-. 32 157
PEUPSIOPS 7. secamccccts cs 32 158
GUMS Opee seins ieee oes 32 158
catalania.-.-...-...+ 40 159
abusalam -......... 41 159
parvimanus ........ 43 159
DU Tigers ser eo seas 43 160
Dealiphinusecsshssee == 44 160
delphisessses-eaeees 45 160
longirostris..-...-.- 58 161
Capensis:s.--. -5 se 59 162
roseiventris .-...... 60 162
Prodelplinusii=-s--0e-2% 61 162
ceruleo-albus .....- 62 163
euphrosyne- .....--. 63 163
? lateralis .......... 65 164
Dlaviodonie.-. -s2-- 66 -164
Hf02) OF 0101 |e eee 68 166
malayanus ....-....- 67 165
Page. Page.
Subfamily DELPHININAE—
Continued.
Prodelphinus—Cont’d.
attenuatus 2. --sssee 67 165
longirostris ..-..-.-. 75 166
ANTISIOS See ooe on eee i 167
Peroni sees eesee se 78 167
boreallis#424-eeemeee 80 168
Lagenorhynchus........ 83 168
ACUDUS) erase ee 169
fibZROVIe eee sess 87 170
whigoleamaeese sees 88 173
CHUCIS Cheeses sae eee 90 170
superciliosus ....--. 92 171
ADIMOSULISHen esses 94 ulZ/Al
obliquidens ....-.-.- 96 172
electraen. semanas coe O0 173
ODSCULUS sca neeneee 104 174
SaAGMatiras| ee scem esos ee 106 174
ehanlonaysora. ss s6 eee 106) = GS
IN@TESAi S26 25) aoe eee 107 175
intermedia -.-...--- 107 175
Cephalorhynchus....-.. 108 176
heavisidel-seses 2226 108 176
Millowpigoiis! Bence ocacc 1t1 1 eri
hectortiecee eects sees 112 ie/z7¢
€Utroplae seats = 112 172
Neomerisensesssecen eee 178
phocenoides....---- 114 178
Phoesna i soeaecees cere 1 179
Communist s2—eeee 118 179
SPUN PMNS See ee 122 180
8 SYSTEMATIC INDEX.
- Synop-
Review. aa
Page.
Subfamily DELPHININAE—
Continued.
Phocena—Continued.
6151 PRE Re are ese 123
Orcellas. 2 Lee Soo se
DEGVITOSILIS! 22.6 eae -
HUMTNANGeses eee
GramMpUSeeccccecec se ce 125
DRISOUS emacs neee 125
Globicephalus .....-.---. 133
MELAS, Meee eee 133
TNGICUS: Kae tee cee sce 137
macrorhyhneus. .-.- 138
scammonil.:..----- 139
brachypterus -....-- 139
Page,
181
181
182
182
182
182
183
183
186
186
185
184
- oan Spnop-
Rewiew. eae
Page.
Subfamily DELPHININAE—
Continued.
Globicephalus—Cont’d.
BiGHOlGI sees = eee 142
PseudorGaz .cecesee ses 143
Crassidens -2---5os06 143
OrCalnet= farses Sees
eladiator: 2222 ase.
Subfamily DELPHINAPTE-
RINAE:
Delphinapterus......-.. 146
leucasi= ss o.2eae ease 146
Monodoneeaseneseeo eee
Page.
186
1°6
186
187
187
187
187
188
188
EN. TRO DUCTION:
§ 1. REMARKS UPON THE DISTINCTION OF SPECIES AND UPON SUB-
FAMILY DIVISIONS.
The writer is fully aware that the time is not yet ripe for a final
review of the family Delphinide. The work now accomplished must
be regarded as provisional and subject to revision in the future.
Some of the great hindrances to the study of the dolphins—the scarcity
of material, the ignorance of the limits of specific variation, and the like—
have already been pointed out by Professor Flower, and it is not neces-
sary that I should dwell upon these points. One other difficulty which
is encountered by every student of the Cetacea arises from the incom.
pleteness of the descriptions of species. In numerous cases only the
external appearance of the species is described (and this from a single
individual), the des cription being accompanied by one or two measure-
ments, such as the total length or “the greatest girth. In other instances,
equally numerous, species are described from a single skull. It is evi-
dent that if this condition of affairs affected the entire family there
would be two series of species: First, those founded on external appear-
ace alone; and, second, those founded on osteological characters alone.
Such a condition of affairs does, indeed, to a large extent prevail and
has proved the cause of much confusion.
A naturalist can, however, scarcely be regarded as deserving censure
for having described the skeleton of a species the external appearance
of which is unknown to him. If the description is full and accurate
it must be accepted, and cetologists must be content to wait patiently
until the acquisitions of new specimens make a complete description
possible.
Some writers, however, seeking to avoid the difficulty arising from
this multiplication of names, have produced confusion in another way.
Having come into the possession of fresh specimens, or of skeletons,
accompanied by collectors’ notes on the external appearance, they have
identified the former with species insufficiently described by previous
writers from external characters alone, and, without giving figures or
measurements of the exterior, hive procee lel to describe the skeleton.
It is evident that a studeat approaching the sudject at a later date has
9
10 INTRODUCTION.
only the author’s bare statement that the external characters of the
individual whose skeleton is described were identical with those of a
previously-described species.
In the case of species founded upon single skulls, absolute certainty
as to their distinctness can be reached only when Jarge series of indi-
viduals known to be alikein their external and skeletal characters shall
have beenacquired. When such series shall be at command, the limits
of specific variation can be determined with accuracy, and it will be pos-
sible to judge whether the characters held out as distinguishing the
species in question are really of specific value or only represent such
variations as are common among individuals of the same species. In
the mean time it is only possible in many cases to form opinions whicb
may or may not coincide with the truth.
In this, as in all other families of animals, an arrangement of the
genera in a single linear series does violence to their natural affinities,
while the attempt to introduce subfamily distinctions, with a view of
approximating the arrangement more closely to a natural sequence, is
here attended with great difficulties. Dr. Gill* has recognized four sub-
families: Pontoporiine, Delphinapterine, Delphinine, and Globiocephali-
ne. The genus Pontoporia(—Pontoporiine) I do not regard as belonging
to the Delphinidae, and shall, therefore, omit all further reference to if.
The Globiocephaline (=Globicephalus and Grampus) are characterized as
having “digits (second and third) segmented into numerous phalanges,”
and to this are opposed the Delphinapterine and Delphinine, which have
‘‘digits (second and third) not segmented into more than 5-6 phalanges
each.” The facts do not appear to warrant this distinction, since Del-
phinus delphis commonly has from seven to nine phalanges in the sec-
ond digit, and Tursiops tursio and other species seven phalanges, which
figures also represent the number of phalanges in the second digit of
Grampus.
The character which Dr. Gill employs for the separation of the Del-
phinine from the Delphinapterine seems to me to be of much greater im-
portance. This relates to the condition of the cervical vertebra. In
Monodon and Delphinapterus (—Delphinapterine) the cervicals are all
distinct, while in the other genera of the family they are more or less
consolidated. I should be inclined, therefore, to unite Dr. Gill’s Del-
phinine and Globiocephaline under the former name, and to oppose to
them the Delphinapterine as a second subfamily. I am the more in-
clined toward the adoption of this division on account of having dis-
covered a character, which, in addition to that of the separate cervicals,
is common to Monodon and Delphinapterus, but wanting in the other
genera. This is that in the narwhal and white whale the pterygoid
bones, instead of merely forming the walls of the posterior nares, extend
backward in the form of broad plates across the optic canal and articu-
late with the squamosals.
*Gill. Arrangement of the Families of Mammals, 1872, p. 95.
; INTRODUCTION. 11
This arrangement of parts is not to be found in other genera of the
Delphinide, but is characteristic of the fluviatile dolphins (Platanista,
ete.), to which indeed the Delphinapterine show many marks of affinity.
Their separate cervical vertebree, prolonged pterygoids, broad pectorals,
and rudimentary dorsal fin, taken together, entitle them, I believe, to be
regarded as a distinct subfamily. Elsewhere in the group I do not
perceive that broad divisions are called for. Professor Flower employs
provisionally the characters furnished by the shape of the head as a
means of dividing the family into two groups. These characters, as
Professor Flower himself admits, though useful and seemingly in accord-
ance with natural affinities, within certain limits, are not trenchant.
The characters of the two divisions as regards the form of the head
are as follows:*
a. With rounded head, without distinct rostrum or beak. (Among the genera in-
cluded here are Cephalorhynchus and Lagenorhynchus. )
b. Dolphins with distinetly elongated rostrum, or beak, generally marked off from the
antenarial adipose elevation by a V-shaped groove. (Comprises Delphinus,
Tursiops, Prodelphinus, Steno; and Sotalia.)
Leaving Monodon and Delphinapterus out of consideration, this dis-
tinction is valid for the majority of the genera, but is broken down by
Lagenorhynchus and Cephalorhynchus. In the former genus (included
in section a) the beak, though shorter than in Tursiops (included in
section b), is quite distinct and well marked off from the forehead, while
in some species of Cephalorhynchus the head is certainly not “rounded”
in the sense of being globose, but is conical.
The second character of the sections has to do with the length of the
rostrum as compared with the total length of the skull. Here again
Lagenorhynchus and Cephalorhynchus appear intermediate. Cephalo-
rhynchus eutropia (section a) has the beak relatively as long as Tursiops
tursio (section 6); the same is also true for some species of Lageno-
rhynchus.
In spite of these considerations, however, I have employed these char-
acters in the artificial keys to the genera, given on pages 152 and 153,
believing them to be as useful, for that purpose at least, as any which
can be formulated at present.
Among the supergeneric distinctions employed by Professor Flower
isone which was brought into requisition for the first time and seems to
be of value; this relates to the position of the two pterygoid bones.
In a number of genera these bones meet in the median line of the palate,
while in others they are widely separate. The value of this distinction
is, however, diminished by the fact that in some species of Lageno-
rhynchus these bones are in contact, while in others they are widely
divergent; also by the fact that the two positions appear to occur in
some species, e.g., Sotalia gadamu, as an individual variation. Within
certain limitation, however, the character is apparently of much value.
* Characters and Divisions, pp. 504 and 511.
12 INTRODUCTION.
§ 2. MEASUREMENTS.
At the beginning of my studies in the European museums I adopted
a series of measurements which I applied uniformly to all specimens.
{t was not long before I perceived, however, that certain of them were
of less value than others in the discrimination of species. I include
them all in the tables in the hope that they may have value in some
other connection. ,
The measurements are given uniformly in centimeters. The total
length of the skuil is measured from the center of a line joining the
surfaces of the occipital condyles to the extremity of the rostrum. The
length of the rostrum is obtained by measuring from the extremity of
the same to the center of a line joining the bases of the maxillary
notches. The orbital breadth is the distance between the centers
(antero-posteriorly) of the margins of the orbits. The temporal fossie
being in most cases elliptical, the measurements of their length and
breadth are made along their major and minor axes.
§ 3. ABBREVIATIONS.
There are a number of works upon the Delphinide to which I shall have
need to refer so frequently in the succeeding pages that I have adopted
for convenience certain abbreviations of their titles. These works are
as follows:
Title. Abbreviation.
J.E. Gray. Catalogue of Seals and Whales in the British Museum. 2d | Catalogue.
ed., London, 8°, 1866.
J. E. Gray. Synopsis of the Species of Whales and Dolphins in the Col- | Synopsis.
lection of the British Museum. London, 4°, 1868.
J. E. Gray. Supplement to the Catalogue of Seals and Whales in the | Supplement.
3ritish Museum. London, 8°, 1871. —
Wm. Hl. FLower. On the Characters and Divisions of the Family Del- | Characters and Divisions.
phinide. Proceedings, Zoological Society of London, 1883, pp. 466-513.
Wm. H. FLower. List of the Specimens of Cetacea in the Zoological De- | List.
partment of the British Museum. London, 8°, 1885.
SCHLEGEL. Abhandlangen aus dem Gebiete der Zoologie und vergleichen- | Abhandlungen.
den Anatomie. Leiden, 4°, 1841.
ax PENEDEN ot GERVAIS. Ostéographie des Cétacés vivant et fossiles. | Ostéographie.
aris, 4°, 1880.
P. Fiscuer. Cétacés du Sud-Ouest de la France. Actes dela Société | Cétacés de France.
Linnéenne de Bordeaux, xxxv, 1881, pp. 5-219, pl. i-viii.
spore TILE { SBR py
OF New York.
REVIEW OF TIE SPECIES OF DOLPHINS.
SUBFAMILY I. DELPHININ_.
1. SOTALIA Gray.
Sotalia, Gray, Cat. Seals and Whales, Brit. Mus., 2d ed., 1866, p. 401; Synopsis,
1868, p. 6; Supplement, 1871, p. 67.
The type of this genus is the Delphinus guianensis of Van Beneden.
Of the characters assigned to the genus by Gray (1. ¢.) and by Pro-
fessor Flower (Characters and Divisions, p. 513) only three seem to me of
real value as distinguishing itfrom Turstopsand Steno. These are(1) the
separation of the pterygoids; (2) the more limited number of the caudal
vertebre; and (3) the greater number of teeth. The somewhat unusual
breadth of the base of the pectoral finis shared by Steno. The unusual
length of the symphysis of the mandible which has also been cited as
a generic character seems to me of little value, since it is not shared by
all the species. Although in S. plumbeus, lentiginosus, and sinensis the
symphysis occupies about one-third of the ramus of the mandible, in S.
tucuxt and gadamu it occupies only about one-fifth.
The genus, as already intimated, is very closely related to Steno and
Tursiops, both in its external form and its osteology. It shows some
relationship, however, to Platanista, Inia, and Pontoporia in the com-
paratively small number of its vertebre and the length of their centra.
It will be necessary for me to treat of the species with much reserve
since I did not have the opportunity of examining carefully all the types
and must therefore base my opinions partly upon the descriptions and
drawings which have hitherto been published.
SOTALIA GADAMU (Owen).
Delphinus (Steno) JEGGmnes Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. London, vi, 1866, p. 17, pl.
111, figs. 1-2.
Sotalia gada n.Flower, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1883, pp. 489 and 513.
This species is the first treated of in Sir Richard Owen’s memoir upon
the Indian cetacea. His material consisted of drawings and a defective
skull (1477)) which is now in the British Museum. The mandible which
13
14 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
bears the same number as this cranium (1477)) and was figured as
belonging with the latter (Trans. Zool. Soc., v1, pl. 4), inreality belongs to
a second and perfect cranium (1477a), which, although not mentioned by
Sir Richard Owen, was apparently received with the type. This last-
mentioned skull is wrongly labeled “ No.423. Type.” A third skull (82:
1, 2, 3) is also in the collection. In the Cambridge Zoological Museum
there is a fourth skull (573a) derived, according to the label, from
Wollongong.
These four specimens agree well together; the Cambridge skull alone
presents any important differences. The differences observable in
this case relate to the comparative breadth of the skull and are very
probably sexual. The pterygoids in specimens 1477) (type) and 1477a
differ considerably in shape, but such variations are of frequent occur-
rence, and here at least, in my judgment, are not to be regarded as of
specific value.
There are in the British Museum two stuffed skins of this species
which though smaller than Sir Richard Owen’s specimen agree well with
it in proportions, except so far as regards the length of the pectoral fins.
The following measurements taken from these skins are in right lines,
except the distance from the extremity of the snout to the dorsal fin, in
measuring which the curve of the back was followed:
Measurements of two mounted skins of Sotalia gadamu.
British Museum.
Measurement.
No. 82: No. 83:
EPG 11, 20, 3.
Inches. Inches.
Lotalilon pth sence seeeneee sere sewmeeeee cece 63. 0 62. 75
Tip of beak to corner of mouth.......-..-..----- 8.15 9. 75
Wip'OL beak toleyere. =. eseece = se aase ee reeees 9.6 10.5
Tip of beak to elevation of head...-............. 3.95 4.0
Tip of:beak toblowholeic.- seen euecen see eseeeeee 10. 30 10. 75
Tip of beak to anterior base of pectoral fin ...... 15.0 16. 25
Tip of beak to anterior base of dorsal fin .-...--. 28.0 27.8
Length of base of dorsal fin............-.---..--- 9.0 49.0
Height of dorsal fin (vertical) ..-..-............-- 5.5 5.7
Length of pectoral fin (from anterior base) --.--. 10. 75 +e
Breadth of flukes (tip to tip)<--..2-cssceecse. ose. 16. 75 12.4
Greatest breadth of pectoral fin...........---.... 4.0 on a
Peeth-(aboulh) 3 20s shcoccs seats cases ee seniors eae Oe ; 28-28
S. gadamu does not appear to be very closely related to the other
Species of the genus. The differences which separate it from S. lentigi-
nosus will be considered in the section devoted to that species (p. 16).
From 8. sinensis and the South American species it differs widely as re-
gards size of beak, number of teeth, etc., and the skeleton, when known,
Hoe probably show that similar differences extend to other parts of the
ody.
The skull shows decided affinities to Tursiops, from some species of
which, were the pterygoids united, it would be very difficult to dis-
tinguish it.
Cr
SOTALIA LENTIGINOSUS. 1
Measurements of three skulls of Sotalia gadamu.
Breadth | g Ba
of beak— a : #
eS ~ xe
iS = ss i\ang
3 ad q é Blea, 5S) B-A
8 Collection. Locality. : 3 192! 56 /8°| Smo
A o | a 2 lw! os | oS | Bee
: ese Vee S| Se rege
2, 3 | 8 a |$8| 8 | 39)| 2.8
S) a = = a on |o So%
= ie ae wo 15 Sy lincs ena
g Hite OS bijastae ee eee
io) n| a H |4 q |} oO
Om. | Om. | Om.| Om.| Cm. | Cm.
1477a | Brit. Museum -...........- Indias ace \eekies oe 247.7 |228.7 10.6 | 5.2] 3.0 8.0
BPA (MNOS) a seee GO) eras annie anaemia Kurrache Mus..|.... 43.2 | 25.3 | 9.3 | 5.0] 2.7 | 7.6
573a | Cambrid ge Museum....... Wollongong .--.|.... 43.0 | 25.4 10.5) 5.8] 3.2 7.6
|
4 Extremity | Breadth Temporal EI A = .
EB of beak to | between—| —_ fossz. g a 3s |S
‘ a SH Se o.|6
Sr ipicaccilho Ba ro) ie fee: © oa |
: A} od | & ; a pe Z As |e
iB =! nOlgqgan|]+. n® = b ) BSS /2 é
& ] |8slae/] 2 qa ma | aio | Bio Ble 3
A Sia | ee | En.S qa | es |aa |] ge 5 S
5 Se Sahel ese he 3 Gin | oO | oo it o
A a [betes ll usth esi cs Ri rs Be. SS aS Sy
© a | aS S| oe Ag a = $a iP 5
| ° Sm BE 5 a0 S “ 2) 3 ° 2 = 2 B
Ey ef a ee ee | tae | ose be es oie ame es
=| En = oF x oo of =) ri) oO 0 = =| 8
= Bg) aS a = a Mn a = a kag ics
iS) 4 H 4 oo) eo] H A 4 | | A i=) 4
Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Om. | Om. | Cm. | Cm. ‘
52642
1477a |....-. Gar iiine2e (08s 8: (185 | 1887 | OV2 | 7. O | canes te code al aeons 3 ——
2 52
82.(1,2,3)| 20.7] 5.1| 29.0 | 29.8/17.2/ 145] 8.8] 63] 35.4| *5.8! 20.3] 71/6 ee sre
40— =)
26—25
5730 | 20.4 |....-- 2854) 2048) 19101|) 15.60 950) | 7-2) |) 86. 2°] *5/6) |. coon laeeeee oa i
| 25—25
|
* This is the length of the symphysis proper; the length of the rugose area is about 11,7 cm.
SOTALIA LENTIGINOSA (Owen).
Delphinus (Steno) lentiginosus, Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. London, vr, 1866, p. 20,
pl. v, figs. 2 and 3.
Sotalia lentiginosus, Flower, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1883, p. 489 and 513.
The only specimens of this species which I found in the European
collections are the type skull (1476a) with its mandible (1477) and a
second broken mandible (1476a), all of which are in the British Museum.
Sir Richard Owen showed his recognition of the true affinities of the
species by placing it in Gray’s genus Steno, which, at the time he wrote,
included both species with united pterygoids and those with separate
pterygoids. He very properly separated the present species from S.
gadamu, in consideration of the difference in the relative length of the
beak, the number of teeth, and some other characters of the skull, ap-
parently of less moment. Professor Flower, however, seems to doubt
the distinctness of the two species. He writes:
D. lentiginosus, Owen, from the same locality [as 8. gadamu], described in the same
memoir, is a closely allied species, if distinct. (List, p. 489.)
/
The doubt expressed in the last clause of this sentence I do not share.
In addition to the differences pointed out by Sir Richard Owen, viz., the
16 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
existence in S. lentiginosa of (1) a relatively longer beak, (2) flatter
intermaxillz (3) a longer tooth-row, and (4) more numerous teeth, I find
(5) that the symphysis of the mandible is longer than in S. gadamu,
(6) the temporal fosse are larger, (7) the pterygoids are longer, and (8)
the interorbital breadth less (see table of measurements below). The
whole relative arrangement of the bones of the inferior surface of the
skull differs in the two species.
In regard to external appearance, if the figures published by Sir
Richard Owen are to be relied upon, the two species, S. lentiginosa and
S. gadamu, are very different (T. Z. S., vi, 1866, pl. 3 (S. gadamu), pl. 5,
figs. 2, 3 (S. lentiginosa). In addition to the difference in color and
style of marking, the proportions of the pectoral fin, as presented both
by the measurements and in the plates, are such as would alone suffice
for the separation of the two species. The length of this member in S.
gadamu is fully 22 per cent. of the entire length of the animal, while in
S. lentiginosa the former length is less than 13 per cent. of the latter.
Differences of almost equal magnitude exist in the proportions and rela-
tive positions of other members of the body. The value of these dis-
tinctions, however, would be greatly enhanced if we could be sure that
the measurements were derived from the specimens themselves and not
from the drawings. Unfortunately the intimation derived from the first
paragraph of Sir Richard Owen’s paper is that they ‘vere derived from
the drawings. Even should such prove to be the case, the differences in
the skulls remain, and these alone,in my estimation, are sufficient to
warrant the separation of the species.
Measurements of the type skull of Sotalia lentiginosa.
Breadth | 8 a Fa
of beak—| = =)
ee Se ae Ba
Bylo.
Pe Bis | Soi he
“ 5 RO |™on
Pa = 0,2 &
o Tat =A Sag
<= 4 (|B 2S |oac
3g Collection. Type of— Locality. Se |/52] gs |4,o | fis
=) . . o Ro| © oa | tea
rs] © a 2 woe| os Ss Es a,
i) a= S) “= ad —
© a | © | w |of|/ 3 | ae =i
5 =] ° os re ePAgi+r 4
5p ico] i) = ane | i=] eS
° SR es Ss |e a2lee|».2H
= 4 . a) =>
a a 2 6 | 2 Be eal de ays
~ 7] Pe) q nas 2582
3 a oO oO ~ ~ teal HO
S) Zar || NEI ee e'| q | o
; Cm. | Cm.-| Om. | Cm.| Cm cm
1476a | Brit. Museum.| D. lentiginosus..| Vizagapatam .| ? | 47.0 | 28.2 |10.2 | 4.7] 3. i
4 Extremity | Breadth | Temporal 3 S| < 2
4 | of beak @ 18 a
ms of beak to—| between— fosse. qg S ue)
a : Th 2 Cm ®. §
. 4 So 2 . he
s |% 5 Be iS Rawle © Sumas | Ss
es a mal wai a , 2 =| E as D
ms plas} od 5 2 n 2 as ° 32 oO :
oa) = no =p | es 8 [5 st mo S & =
2 5 ar Qn tal An i as 4 © =I 7 =
=I eas ae eae “4D Fey |) Sti a6. &
q eed t o =| be Oo S 2
5 ° eR tsuise ong, a US) | beta Iara) = o
| £ |b] sa |] ee ap FI Eb | Meech SSS sh
Fs H oS Dr Se a S =] 32 ° SH
© iter aa RH | 2S ou hy Of | aw Da He o
ey | S om Vali) Sy =A 5 = ° i) 2 ° 2 uy
= a ont iol 5 E - a)
I es eke F2 |S a] Bl eS ey ele le 2
We -lhecsa hs heen nl ese = aa wie oH a) 6G be 0 2 | g
= a ED'S cea ee cS al ee a = A A A a a =
a o | a | A =| ; = a o ® o co) qa
ee ane tell ee eco eh ereiest | bey fa) eas 4
ewe P| Cae Paka s bees eee
| Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Om. | Om. | Cm. | Om. | Om. | Om. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Om. Ons
7 | 31) ai wm |e 7 | st
1476a | 25.3] 3.8] 31.7 | 34.9 | 17.4 14.7 | 10.2] 8.0 | 39.9 |'12.1 | 23.9] 7.9 | 0.43 a
| | | 33-34
*This is the extent of the rougose area; the real symphysis is about 5.3 em.
SOTALIA GUIANENSIS. i
SOTALIA GUIANENSIS (Van Beneden).
Delphinus guianensis, Van Ben., Mém. Couron. Acad. Royale Belg., coll. in 8°, xv1,
1864, art. 2, 1 pl.
Sotalia guianensis, Gray, Cat. Seals and Whales, Brit. Mus., 1866, p. 401.
SOTALIA BRASILIENSIS E. Van Beneden.
Sotalia brasiliensis, KE. Van Ben., Mém. Acad. Royale Belg., xii, 1875, art. J,
pls. 1 and 2.
SOTALIA PALLIDA (Geryais).
Delphinus pallidus, Gervais, Castelnau Expél. dans VAmér. Sud, pt. vu,
Zoologic, 1&55, p. 94, pl. x1x, figs. 1-2.
Sotalia pallida, Van Ben, and Gervais, Ostéog. des Cétacés, 1580, p. 595.
SOTALIA TUCUXI (Gray).
Steno tucuxi, Gray, Aun. and Mag. Nat. Hist., 2d ser., xvi, 1856, p. 158.
Sotalia tucuri, Flower, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1883, p. 513.
SOTALIA FLUVIATILIS (Gervais).
~
Delphinus fluviatilis, Gervais, Bull. Soc. @Agric. Hérault, xi, 1853, p. 148 (sine
descr. ).
Sotalia fluviatilis, Van Ben. and Gervais, Ostéog. des Cétacés, 1880, p. 596,
Of these five nominal species, one, 8. guianensis, is from Cayenne;
three from the Amazon River, S. pallida, tucuxi, and fluviatilis; and
one, S. brasiliensis, from the bay of Rio de Janeiro. At least two skele-
tons of S. guianensis are to be found in the European collections and
one of 8. brasiliensis. The latter, however, is that of so young an ani-
mal as to make comparisons of little value. The description of S.
tucuxi was drawn from two skulls in the British Museum. Numberot vertebra... ---es-eeeee 55 54
3. Number of ribs (pairs)!-----------—- 12 11
4. Number of sternal ribs (pairs) ...... Ty 6
. . 1 (of bone);
5. Number of pieces in sternum ...-.... 3 ii (eeaeniaeey
$2 34
(i, MUTE OE WEE Nagano onaaancoce cons — =
29 33
larger and
Heat DONS seeeewe menisci ceeee eer smaller, ; peculiar.
On account of the immature condition of the specimen of S. brasiliensis,
characters 1 and 5 are manifestly of little importance. The differences
represented in characters 2, 3, and 6 are within the range of individual
variation, as has been abundantly proved by the examination of various
species. Characters 4 and 7, therefore—the number of sternal ribs and
the size and form of the ear-bones—alone constitute recognizable dis-
tinctions between the two species, Of these two characters, the first is
quite likely to be merely an individual difference; but the second can
not of course be so considered.
Between S. fluviatilis and S. pallida the following distinctions are
made:
Color—
S. fluviatilis : Body black above, rose-pink below; pectorals colored like the back.
8. pallida: Body fulyous above, white below ; pectorals not colored like the back.
Pectoral fins—
S. fluviatilis : Quite large and pointed.
S. pallida: Smaller, less pointed, and narrower at the base.
Dorsal fin—
S. fluviatilis : Two-thirds as high as long.
S. pallida: Less high.
These distinctions are unsatisfactory, but can not be set aside without
reason.
Between the five species we have but two points of comparison, the
color of the body and the number of teeth. The data given by the dif-
ferent original describers are as follows:
S. brasiliensis—
Color: Back blackish, sides fulvous, belly white; pectoral like the back,
Teeth: 34. (&. Van Beneden.)
S. guianensis—
Teeth: 33. (E. Van Beneden.)
S. tucuxi—
Color: Darkish black or fuscous. Teeth: 39. (Gray.)
S. fluviatilis—
Color: Above biack, beneath rose-color; pectorals like the back. (Gervais. )
S. pallida—
Color: Above fulvous, beneath white; pectorals like the belly. Teeth: 3%.
(Gervais. )
SOTALIA TUCUXI. 19
3esides the original descriptions of the different species, we have
Natterer’s account of a specimen of river-dolphin harpooned at the
mouth of the Rio Negro.* The specimen, which was a male, is repre-
sented as having been ashy-gray above and violet-gray below, with fins
colored like the back. In coloration, therefore, it agreed tolerably well
with S. fluviatilis. Natterer gives a number of measurements, but we
have only the measurements of S. brasiliensis with which to compare
them. Irom these it appears that the latter species has shorter pectoral
fins, higher dorsal fin, and narrower flukes than had Natterer’s specimen.
These differences give some strength to the opinion that the marine
species, S. brasiliensis and S. guianensis, are distinct from the fresh-water
species.
Von Pelzeln is inclined to support Gray’s opinion that all the nom-
inal river species are identical. He states, however, that Bates men-
tions NS. pallida as occurring in the lower Amazon, which does not appear
to be a fact. Bates’s words are as follows:
In the upper Amazons a third pale, flesh-colored species is also abundant (the
Delphinus pallidus of Gervyais).t
The species which he found at the mouth of the Tocantins River is
the “Steno tucuwi of Gray.”
In this unsatisfactory condition our knowledge is, unfortunately,
likely to remain, until more material has been collected. The skeletons
of a number of adult individuals, and observations upon the variation
of the color and of the proportions of the pectoral and dorsal fins among
members of the same school, are requisite to solve the problems which
these five nominal species present.
Skulls Nos. 1189a, ¢,and 1189), 2 in the British Museum, the types of
S. tucuxi are those of young animals, as is indicated by the exposure of
a considerable portion of the frontal behind the maxilla and the dis-
tinctness of the occipito-parietal suture, The intermaxille are short
proximally, and the maxille are visible on the anterior and lateral
margins of the anterior nares. The ridge of the mesethmoid is higher
than the triangular prenarial area in its middle part, and is thickened,
forming a transverse ridge. The intermaxille are broadest and quite
flat near the middle of the rostrum. The prenarial triangle is concave.
The nasals are small in the male, and present only a thick upper edge.
The inner margins of the pterygoids in this specimen are separated
at the extremity by an intervai of about 28"™" and at the base are about
5™" apart. The outline of these bones in the two sexes is somewhat
different. The intermaxillze and vomer appear in the median of the
palate anteriorly in No. 1189 a@ for a distance of about 116"", The
crowns of the teeth are tinged with brown, the roots are open. The
ramus of the mandible is flat internally.
A skull recently purchased by the National Museum agrees very
* Brasilische Siiugethiere. Resultate von Johann Natterer’s Reisen in den Jahren
1817 bis 1835. Dargestellt von August von Pelzeln. Wien, 1883. Pp. 95-96.
t Bates, Naturalist ou the Amazons, 1864, p. 88.
20 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
closely with these, but is larger, and evidently belonged to an older
individual. The beak is relatively longer. I regard it identical with
S. tucuxi, and have included it in the table of measurements under that
name. Itis said to have come from -Florida, but the evidence is not
entirely satisfactory. This skull also agrees well in proportions and
details of structure with that figured by Van Beneden and Gervais
under the name of S. pallida (Ostéographie, pl. XLt, fig. 6).
Van Beneden’s measurements of the exterior and skull of his S. bra-
siliensis are appended for convenience of reference:
Measurements of Sotalia brasiliensis.
Exterior: Metres.
Pata lenethy oan ces seas coer 2 = eas coreteie semis doe eam etencwe one vem eeme papi bad
Extremity of beak to eye.-.-..- saci diese mlemeih a se ievens cin suemiosonsioee tees cane 0,18
Eiyertoubaselotip ectorale ssc. tcccen Sessa Anse qe ce moe ee see eeiseecee eer 0.14
Length of the base of the pectoral at its insertion --.... .---.. -.-..- -- cee 0. 06
Pectoral to. extremity, of spinal columm..- 22). 4-<~ case ee cee naa eens 0, 82
H=xtremityof beak to baseiohpectoral na. sce cme acer see as seem eeemene 0, 30
Vertical height of body in front of the dorsal ....2. ... 20... 2205-005 ee eens 0,28
Greatest height of the tail. .2.)--..2 dvs s2G-cses sos soehe 2 seen ve teemea een 0.12
Length of the pectoral. vs... FetchnS2e eons tee ite ens ane oe ee 0, 155
Height of the dorsal-2. csc. cecme secash., soos. «es sine eaten aia eee 0.11
Motalsbreadth’ of the tlukes eeessa oslo cee ee eee eereeenisceeieees 0, 32
Skull:
Mota Lengthy cnc eon, csvset cect ae wie cletneinis scuniemce te ee nie sete shcnier meres streiecis 0, 305
jueneth' of beaks ..22sc0 cocsicies cocsee saa eeinos ieee pac eee see serene aes 0. 165
Antero-posterior diameter of pope CaN iby: egos ee oeice ae 0. 100
Breadth of skull between temporal! dossea 2-222 saaee- cece estes eleeeeeee 0, 130
Breadth at the zygomatic apophyses of temporal -.--.....--.. .----.+.---- 0.136
Height of skull between the crest and the bason -..-... Soonds Bago. cécs ba0c 0.110
Breadth. of beak at last bacth.....cs0 og
of beak— | & a2
Sale lee ses
> Ball Sora
3 S ea ewe
a ; |2,| | #3 | 323
a Collection. Type of— Locality. . el |e All oe Ao Soo 5
A Al) Bis leer) FS [ie Ss Ses
oO Ep Cy cv] 3 Seles 84
5 q SE ete abe | pare) ete
ep 2 aq n |
fo) = ~ a mn a=} Lop
< Ae ae de
3 al = sls <5) || 2 2oa
Oo wm | A H |4 q|a o
Cin. | Cm. | Cm.| Cm.) Cm. Om.
1189@ | Brit. Mus.*..... Steno tucuxt ..| Amazon River.| & | 30.9 | 17.1 | 6.3 13.5 | 2.2 5.3
UN SObE es dO.2- neo 25. <-cll-- a1 dOmoss sence saastsln Son bee OP e295 20 | LosonlPosSuiosO 2.0 4.8
21499 WES Nai MSs |e ocaec cele smice MIOTIAA () Pees |esen| oases) 20s Sal ered: |) Aaa 2.4 5D
| I Pele aS
4 Extent of | Breadth | Temporal 8 a S :
w beak to— | between— fosse— g = = a
| ‘ a
; 3 Se NO
: 3 3 Bh = 5 Ss ° ene £
HS ee Pans . a | a zB Ney || es
i} = Sy) etal] Se nm & = re 2 ac Ps ;
Beles ecirori ce: Ag S jae |Ss| a2 ® |] 3
g = By reese ‘E06 A ax |} da] om! & Sy
Bes! Sul conei ee | Sas ahs ay | Se eSaie ct lee =
a | 8 |*8 | as | es Be ae ee | eS eS |S oe
a) Sa | | 2 &p z S| gy a oq = iS}
=} ° SA He 5 ° ° 3° ° 29 5 -
EN a |s ellos, ae og aia a a] # ®
) = =) me | Ss a og re} a wa} oS S ag O 2
= tw | + | ae = so tn 2 oo eo on ~ S| =
i |) ESTE Af sts a aaa b> ae UU = 5
'S) SS) SI 4 a) So | H A | 4 QA A 4A
Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Om. | Cm
989
1189a | 14.5 OD 20so fede LG) LONG (ea! 52!) 23.6 4.7 | 13.9 5.1 | 0.38 ; ae 3
1188) | 14.2 3o2)|) 1953 | 20.1 | 10.6 | 10.2 6.3 DSC Eee sea Berea Ascra| (obese tactics |“ceeoorertas
31-33
21499 18.3 CRON eRe leone | eso aleal 7.4 6.1 | 29.7 6530 Pecan. G33a|esaee- oa
| 2
* Collected by Bates. t The maxilla have sprung apart.
SOTALIA PLUMBEA (Cuvier).
Delphinus plumbeus, Cuvier, Regne Animal, 2d ed., 1, 1829, p. 283; Pucheran, Rey.
et Mag. de Zool., 2d ser., VI, 1856, pp. 145, 315, 362, 449.
Sotalia plumbeus, Flower, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1888, p. 513.
Steno plumbeus auct.
In the elaborate critique upon the relationships of this species pub-
lished by Pucheran in 1856, the evidence upon which it was united to
D. malayanus, Lesson, D. dubius, Cuvier, and other species, was very
carefully sifted and the conclusion arrived at that it must be considered
distinct and valid.
In its proportions and general appearance the type skull (a3053)
resembles that of S. lentiginosa, but the differences are such that it can
not be united with that form, at least upon the basis of the present
scanty material. ‘ Delphinus plumbeus, Dussumier,” writes Professor
Flower, ‘represents the longest and narrowest form of this type, with
the most numerous teeth.” (Characters and Divisions, p. 489). The
beak is longer and more compressed than in SN. lentiginosa, and the brain-
case is decidedly narrower.
22 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
So far as external appearances are concerned there are apparently
few points of resemblance between the two species. The depression
and great extent of the dorsal fin, so strongly insisted upon by Pucheran
as a character of S. plumbea, is not shared by S. lentiginosa, and the
measurements do not agree. The coior of the body of S. plumbea is
described by F. Cuvier as being of “une teinte uniforme dun gris
plombé, excepté Vextrémité et le dessous de la machoire inférieure,
qui sont blanchatres.”* The color of S. lentiginosa, according to Pro-
fessor Owen, is ‘pretty uniformly bluish cinereous, or slaty, freckled
with irregular small spots or streaks of brown or plumbeous pigment,
the streaks longitudinal and flecked with white; the under surface is a
shade lighter than the rest of the body.”t
I think we may look upon the two species as distinct, and do not
fear that future evidence will invalidate this conclusion.
Table of measurements of the lype-skull of Sotalia plumbea.
| + dq 44
Breadth | = va
of beak— | g EB
> ae ts ee S 2 Bo
; Me | Og
aD = GH 3 =
3 4 Bo | 26
2 ae ate a | Seek
P —_ ; 4 Eien OH |aoao
8 Collection. Type of— Locality. @ |RSS! ; | so] ane
=) : ‘ 4 Westlife Meloy |eeaaets
A Ly e Ss =} ce} = 5 Les
o op tu o| = ba) ial
iS A Oo leo Tle Boll, Sel ate
2 = a |gb aA] dee
iS) onl = Sh DQ » +o
= eS cd SO CCA =e |S at 8
= a | 6 S. [s ee Wee ees
S) a Hy |4 ~ is] ~ we) > qo P= ao
i= ti) ) B= | 66 ee) 50 oL oD S =
oS | <=) Seolidg eX a, ~ Vy > a
=| ane nD = 2 = A ef is A e o 5
oe o 3 e A iz, Rae) D oO o | o oO =
See yas pe 4 ic) o | H A | =| A i) A
(ey ;
Om. | Cm. | Om. | Om. | Om. | Cm. Om. | Cm.| Om. | Cm.| Cm.| Cm
ane rele 5 5) |e oa ae : 37-37
a3053| 31.0 | 5.1 40.0 | 41.9] 19.2] 13.5] 11.2| 8.6] 47.0 | 15.0 |...... S27 Bashy tee
| 34-33
| | |
*Mammiféres de la Ménageric du Muséum, 60° livrasion. (ide Pucheran.)
t' Trans. Zool. Soc., London, vi, 1866, p. 20.
t Collected by Dussumier, 1837,
GENUS STENO. 25
' SOTALIA SINENSIS Flower.
Delphinus chinensis, Osbeck, Voyage to China in 1751, p. 12 (without description) ;
Desmarest, Encycl. méthod. (‘‘Mammalogie’’), 1822, p. 514. (From Osbeck
without description. )
Delphinus sinensis, F. Cuvier, Hist. nat. des Cétacés, 1836, p. 213. (From Osbeck
without description. )
Delphinus sinensis, Flower, Trans. Zool. Soc. London, vu, 1870, p. 151.
Sotalia sinensis, Flower, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1883, p. 513.
This species, which from the time it was originally observed by Os-
beck in 1751, stood among the forms incerte sedis, was formally described
by Professor Flower, in 1870, on the basis of two skeletons collected by
Mr. Swinhoe in the harbor of Amoy. Although, through the kindness
of Professor Flower, I was enabled to examine the types of the species,
I can add nothing to his concise and sufficient account, and will simply
quote the paragraphs in which the distinctive characters are set forth:
The principal differences between this skeleton and that of all other Dolphins lie
in the vertebral column. The total number of vertebrie is less [viz: C. 7 D. 12, L.
10; Ca. 22=51], the individual vertebre are proportionally longer, and their trans-
verse processes are shorter and broader than in any other species. Next to it in these
characters stands D. guianensis (genus Sotalia, Gray), which has the following verte-
bral formula: C.7, D.12, L 14, C.22=55; then D. tursio, which has C. 7, D. 13, L. 17,
C.25=62.* ‘The live animal is of a milky white, with pinkish fins and black eyes.’t
The numbers of the teeth of the adult specimen of D. sinensis, as indicated by the
alveoli, are a, total 128.
The localities in which the species is known or believed to occur
are the harbor of Amoy, Canton River, and Foochow River.
A good figure of the exterior and measurements are still desiderata.
Measurements of the skull are given in the synopsis.
2. STENO Gray.
Glyphidelphis, Gervais, Zool. et Paleont. Frang., 1859, p. 301.
=Steno, Flower, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1883, p. 513.
Only three characters of importance have been brought forward as
distinguishing this genus from its nearest ally, Z'ursiops. These relate
to the (1) compression of the beak, (2) the elongation of the symphysis
of the mandible, and (3) the rugosity of the teeth. The first two of
these characters impress upon the mandible a peculiar form, which is
widely different from that existing in Tursiops. The rami are concave
*Trans. Zool. Soc., London, vit, 1870, p. 159. The number of vertebrae in the
genera Monodon and Delphinapterus, which is ouly 50, is not taken into consideration
by Professor Flower in this connection. ft Loe. cit., p. 152. t Loe. cit., 155,
24 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
outward, and as the symphysis is not keeled the terminal portion of the
mandible has the least depth, which is not the case in Tursiops. Inthe
last-named genus the beak is depressed, while in Steno it is compressed.
The teeth are equally numerous in the two genera, but in Steno the
crown is rugose. As regards the vertebra, the number in four regions
of the body is practically alike in both genera, but, according to the
measurements given by Dr. Peters for S. perspicillatus, the combined
length of cervical vertebrie would appear to be considerably greater in
Steno than in Tursiops.
From Sotalia the present genus is distinguished by its conjoined
pterygoids and its less numerous and rugose teeth.
STENO ROSTRATUS (Desmarest).
Delphinus rostralus, Cuvier, Desmarest, Nouy. Dict. d’Hist. nat., 1x, 1817, p. 160;
Mammalogie, 1822, p. 515.
Delphinus rostratus, Shaw (?), Cuvier, Ann. du Muséum, x1x, 1812, p. 10.
Delphinus frontatus (pars), Cuvier, Oss. foss., 2d ed., Vv, 1823, p.278. (Fide Flower.)
Delphinus rostratus, G. Cuvier, Regne Animal, 2 ed., 1, 1829, p. 289; I. Cuv., in
Oss. foss., 4th ed., 1836, p. 86, 121; Hist. nat. des Cétacés, 1836, p. 156.
Delphinus bredanensis, Cuy., Lesson, Hist. Nat. des Mammif. et Oiseaux découvert
depius 1788, 1828, p. 206; Van Breda, Nieuwe Verhandl. Neder]. Inst., 11,
1829, pp. 235-237, pls. 1, 2.
Delphinorhynchus bredanensis, Lesson, Hist. Nat. des Mammif. et Oiseaux découvert
depuis 1783, 1828, p. 441 (table méthod.).
Steno rostratus and S. frontatus, Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, 1846, p. 43.
Steno frontatus, Gray, Synop. Whales and Dolphins, 1868, p. 5.
Glyphidelphis rostratus, Gervais, Zool. and Paleon. Frang., 1859, p. 301; Ostéog.
des Cétacés, 1880, p. 594, pl. xxxvul, figs. 8-11.
Delphinus planiceps, Schlegel, Abhandl. aus d. Geb. Zoologie, heft 1, 1841, p. 27
(not Van Breda).
Steno compressus, Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, 1846, p. 43, pl. 27.
Delphinus Reinwardtii, Schlegel, Abhandl. Geb. Zool., heft 1, 1841, p. 27, pl. 3, figs.
2.3.
Delphinus Pernettyi, Desmarest, Mammalogie, 1822, p. 513.
The peculiar synonymy of this species has received thorough treat-
ment at the hands of Professor Flower (Charae. and Div., p. 482 et seq.),
to whose account I can add but little. He has, however, fallen into
the same error as Schlegel in accrediting the name D. planiceps to Van
Breda. The latter writer used the name of D. bredanensis for the
Species, which name, according to his owt account, he took from Les
son’s Histoire naturelle des Mammiféres decouvert depuis 1788.
Desmarest credits the name DP. rostratus to G. Cuvier, but incorrectly
it appears, for Cuvier simply states that his specimens belong possibly
to Shaw’s Delphinus rostratus. It appears to me, therefore, that Des-
marest’s name should be appended to the name of the species instead of
Cuvier’s.
Van Breda appears to have published his account of the species,
under the name of D. bredanensis, before Cuvier had recognized that
STENO ROSTRATUS. 25
the stuffed skins which had been associated with the skulls in the
Paris Museum did not belong to the same species. When Cuvier rec-
ognized the latter fact he at the same time arrived at the conclusion
that Van Breda’s specimen was specifically identical with the skulis in
the Paris Museum. He also received from Brest a figure of a specimen
which seemed to him identical with Van Breda’s (Oss. foss., 4th ed., VIII,
pt. 2, p. 122, note). Van Breda’s figure and the figure of the Brest
specimen (copied by I’. Cuvier), therefore, represent the exterior of the
species under discussion according to Cuvier’s best knowledge and
belief.
In accepting his opinion, however, we meet at once with a serious
difficulty. The figures referred to represent a dolphin having the beak
confluent with the forehead, a point strongly insisted upon by G. Cuvier
and again by F. Cuvier. But in 1876 Peters described a specimen of
Steno the skull of which is, generically at least, identical with the skulls
in the Paris Museum, but which has the beak distinctly marked off
from the forehead as in the species of Tursiops and Delphinus. We
have, therefore, either to consider. the figures known to Cuvier incor-
rect, or to regard Peters’ specimen as belonging to a distinct subgenus.
From this dilemma nothing thus far known can save us. The figures
in question are crude, but it seems scarcely probable that both would
have the same defect as regards the beak. Regarding the Sleno per-
spicillatus of Peters, Professor Flower says:
If it is not specifically identical with, it is certainly very closely allied to Steno
rostratus. (Characters and Divisions, p. 486.)
I examined the type-skull in 1887, through the kindness of Dr. Hilgen-
dorf, and was unable to see wherein it differed from the ordinary S.
rostratus. The rostrum, as indicated in Peters’ figure, is rather abruptly
and unsymmetrically terminated, as though the tip had been cut off.
Such, however, does not appear to have been the case, and itis possible
that the individual was injured by accident during life. This condition
of the rostrum makes it appear that its proportional width at the mid-
dle is unusually great; according to my measurements it is 19.8 per
cent. of the length. But with the explanation given I do not think that
this is to be regarded as of importance. The teeth are rugose, as in
ordinary specimens of VS. rostratus ; they number — The premaxille
are high, thick, and rounded.
In external form and coloration there is a close resemblance to Tur-
siops tursio, except that a dark eye-ring and forehead-line are present,
as in D. delphis. The cervical region is longer than in Tursiops, but the
number of vertebree is nearly the same in both.
The facts being such as they are, it has seemed to me best to hold
Peters’ specimen apart, under the name of Steno perspicillatus, and I
have, therefore, entered that species separately in the synopsis. Tor
further remarks on the figures known to Cuvier, see p. 27.
26 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. c
In Cuvier’s original description (Ann. du Muséum, x1x, 1812, p. 9) no
single skull is mentioned, and the species, therefore, has no type. The
description, however, and the figure afterwards published in the Osse-
ments fossiles, would suffice for the recognition of the species were it not
that others were subsequently erected on skulls closely resembling that
figured by Cuvier.
The characters which have been insisted upon as separating the dif-
ferent species relate to the width of the beak and the number of teeth.
In the first of these characters, as Professor Flower has already inti-
mated, there is a complete gradation. The following table shows the
gradation in twenty-six specimens in European museums, including the
type of S. compressus and probably also of S. reinwardtii:
Comparison of the length of the beak in S. compressus, etc., taken at 100 per cent., with its
width at the middle.
Greatest num-
ErOROF . ber of teeth—
Collection. Number. Identification. width of Length aes ee
Beak of skull.
at middle. Upper | Lower
jaw. jaw.
: Per cent. | Inches.
Le eideneasse eee. 24.........| Reinwardtii (?Type). TH 20. 47 25 25
2. Liverpool ...... RATGOSB 15) she eee Sh a ee ANE POON OTHO 24 24
oh epee eoeeesoasal| (abl! i senon Rostratwsss-cssseeee 12.2 19.5 22 22
4. London (B. M.).| 3460 ....-- Compressus .-....-- 12.6 20.5 22 24
5. London (B. M.).| 346@...... Compressus (Type). 12. 9 20, 125 25 27
6. Liverpool ...... DEORE a Sean wernt ee es yee SAGO Pes 25 4
Welueidentece see: 20 pe cemesies|) eMC DSaee meee 13.3 19. 92 24 25
SiOxtorde=---epee: X6 (juv.)..| Rostratus:.........- 13.5 19.4 23 24
ONOXfOrd en sasceer it eeasose IRostratus:.-<.-.-.- 14.3 20. 2 24 25
10. Liverpool ...... LO MUNGO. all as sbieetascet acne cece ee 14.3 21.4 22 23
11. Liverpool ...... 13: TTS GBRTEN Ccoewepese eer cece ccces 14.5 20. 25 23 2
12. Liverpool .--... O22 ole | ee Se Sa ee 14.7 21.4 23 23
13. London (B. M.).|] 346d@...-.. Compressus ........ 15N5 20. 125 22 20
14. Leiden -.-.:..-. None’ (1) 22) elanicepssecscssce- 15.6 19. 68 21 23
lomeeiden ane. None (2) ..| ?Planiceps.......... 15.8 20. 79 21 24
HGnOxtordeeseeee ee 1676. 7-2. Rostratus:.-.-...--- 15.8; 20.0 22 22
17. Liverpool ...... Ps iy See ae ee ee eee 15.8 20. 25 22 21
EShkeidenieeseases: Mllosgaoso5e UPlanicepsie.ss- ee 16.2 19.2 21 22
19. Liverpool ...... UAB NO2, Loci em aa cinemas some cree 16.4 21.75 20 2
20. London (B. M.).| 243d@...... Hrontatuseeceserese 16.5 20. 375 22 Pp
21. Liverpool ...... 131 OOS ce oe eee mace cis nets 16.9 20.6 21 21
22. London (B. M.).| 245¢ ...... Hrontatus eass4-cee2 17.4 20.125 23 22
23. Liverpool ....<. 243) BOD = S|) Mee Bek es ee oe ee Lees 18.1 20. 85 23 23
24. Liverpool ...... LEC RI Te eeense cee aeeeiocemritict 18.7 20.0 23 23
Po Uelulenl ae neeees 30) saS ase 52 Rlanicepss secs = 18. 8 21.06 Pal 24
2OeNOD WICH leeeeer eee ees iHrontatus sees eseee 221.0 ge || ao econon eeacac
A gradation so complete as this evidently renders any character drawn
from the proportions of the rostrum useless as an index of specific dis-
tinctness, and, unless others can be brought forward, the separation of
the skulls into different species is, of course, unwarranted.
The slight variation in the number of teeth has no significance, as the
table plainly shows. In all species of dolphins, as a general rule, the
individuals having the longest rostrums have the greatest number of
teeth.
In Cuvier’s figure of the skull of D. rostratus (Oss. foss., 4th ed., 1836,
pl. 222, fig. 7) the breadth of the rostrum at the middle is 19.1 per cent.
STENO ROSTRATUS. OT
of its length, which makes this a very broad-beaked specimen. Meas-
urements from figures, however, are not always to be relied upon. In
the description Cuvier gives the number of teeth as a, while the
figure shows 21 in the left side of the upper jaw and 24 in the lower
jaw. No. a3047 in the Paris Museum, labeled S. rostratus, and also
bredanensis, belongs to the opposite end of the series. The breadth of
the rostrum at the middle is but 12.2 per cent. of its length. This was
probably one of the specimens already in the museum in Cuvier’s time.
Steno compressus Gray.
The type of this species, No. 246a of the British Museum, is a skull
with tolerably narrow rostrum and rather numerous teeth, but appar-
ently without other characters serving to distinguish it from the skulls
in the Paris Museum and in other collections. It is improbable, there-
fore, that it represents a distinct species.
Delphinus retmearatii Schlegel.
The type of thisspecies is apparently the No. 24 of the Leiden Museum.
This is a large skull with a long, narrow rostrum and a rather large
number of teeth (53). It does not differ from the skulls which Gray
called S. compressus, or, in other words, is a narrow-beaked individual of
S. rostratus.
Delphinus bredanensis Van Breda.
As already stated Van Breda described this species before Cuvier
had discovered that the skins originally accredited to S. rostratus were
of quite another species. Van Breda perceived that these skins were
different from that of his specimen but concluded that the case was one
in which two species very different externally were alike as regards
cranial characters. Van Breda’s figure, however, convinced Cuvier that
he was in error, and caused him to accept the same as representing the
true external characters of his D. frontatus or rostratus.
Steno fuscus Gray.
Steno fuscus, Gray, Zool. Erebus & Terror, 1846, p. 44, pl. 26, fig. 1.
What the relationships of this species are, and whether it is a Steno
at all, must probably always remain in doubt. Gray makes the follow-
ing statement in regard to it:
Inhab. Cuba, W.S. MacLeay, Esq.
This species is only known by a feetal specimen in spirit, not in a very good state.
Presented to the British Museum by W. S. MacLeay, Esq.
The figure represents an animal resembling Prodelphinus obscurus, or
indeed not unlike Van Breda’s Steno bredanensis. The forehead is not
separated from the beak by a transverse groove.
z8 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
I did not see the specimen when in London, and if my memory serves
me, was informed that it could not be found. Even if it still exists,
however, I think the same ruling should be applied in this case as in
that of Tursiops cymodice, regarding which Professor Flower says:
T. cymodice may be at once expunged from the list. It is founded upon a single
skull of a very young animal; the basilar suture is not closed, and allits distinguish-
ing characters are those of immaturity. It is impossible to say even of which variety
itis the young. (Characters and Divisions, p. 480.)
Such, too, is the case with this Steno fuscus, and it should be dropped
forever from the catalogue of species.
Since the foregoing paragraphs were written, Dr. Liitken has pub-
lished an important account of the genera Steno, Delphinus and Prodel-
phinus, based on the material in the Copenhagen Museum.*
He gives in plate 1 a colored figure of S. rostratus, constructed from
data furnished by Captain Andréa. This figure does not agree closely
with those of Cuvier, Van Breda or Peters, but is unquestionably much
more accurate than those of the first two authors mentioned. That it
represents the species called Delphinus rostratus by Cuvier and Desma-
rest is highly probable, and I have, therefore, substituted it for Cuvier’s
figure as an illustration in the Synopsis.
There are no grounds for considering Peters’ figure of S. perspicillatus
less accurate than the newly-published figure of S. vostratus. There is,
however, a decided want of agreement between the two figures and the
descriptions in regard to the coloration of the species. Until, therefore,
it can be proven that S. perspicillatus is the young of SN. rostratus, or
that the coloration of the latter is exceedingly variable, it seems to me
that the Peters’ species must be considered distinct. The two species
are quite similar in osteological characters. Their vertebral formule
are as follows:
S.-restraius, C. 7; D. 133 T. Joe Ca. a0 Go.
8. perspicillatus, C. 7; D.12; L. 15; Ca. 32 = 66.
The specimen of S. rostratus captured by Captain Andréa and de-
scribed ‘by Dr. Liitken, was taken in 1° 14’ S. lat., 17° 20’ W. long., or
about midway between Ascension Island and the coast of Africa.
The following measurements of the exterior were taken:
Centimeters.
Uo AMIN Nema acons ak oos adobon sbodesnese-cdosd0 conned Sobceo sets 257.4
Height immediately in front of the dorsal fin -s2.--....-..........-.- 67.6
Erom) the snowt to therdorsal time. seman ee eee eee ele eee SS
JMO TH OVS) (spoT 10) TOVE) ENO recmne cogcno coun soscurooceds Soeoce seccspece 41.6
Brom theisame tothe blow-nole meee sees ieee ere eee naaeear 36. 4
Erom, the'same)to the pectorallttimieer. a-se eee aaa sel eee 65. 0
The skeleton was about 240°" long; the head alone 53°". The first
two cervical vertebrie were anchylosed together, but the neural arch
*Chr. Fe. Liitken, K. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Skr., 6te Raekke, naturviden. og
math. Afd., V, 1889, pt. 1, pp. 1-61, 1 pl. and 2 charts.
STENO ROSTRATUS. 29
and rudimentary transverse process of the axis were visible behind
those of the atlas. The third cervical had on each side a perpendicular
flat triangular process, pierced by a large foramen. In the following
three vertebr the bony ring surrounding the foramen was incomplete.
In the seventh cervical there was a tolerably long diapophysis, but no
parapopysis. Thirteen pairs of ribs were present, the first of which
was much the largest, ‘The first six were attached to the vertebre by
both neck and head.
The first neural spine of the dorsal region was on the second dorsal
vertebra, and, with the next following, was directed much backward.
The last ten caudal vertebrae, which were located in the flukes, were
without neural arches. Twenty-three chevron bones were present, the
three posterior ones being rudimentary.
The longest transverse process was on the second lumbar vertebra.
The last trace of a transverse process was found on the fourteenth cau-
dal vertebra. The first perforations of the transverse processes for the
passage of the caudal artery were in the sixth and seventh caudal ver-
tebree
Five metacarpal bones were present. The formula of the phalanges
-was as follows: I, 4; II, 8; ILI, 6; IV, 3; V, 3.
Dr. Liitken gives, in addition, the following measurements of eight
Skulls in the Copenhagen Museum. Two of these, Nos. 2 and 5, he re-
gards as possibly belonging to a separate but closely allied species.
Measurements of eight skulls of Steno rostratus. (From Liitken.)
|
| Length of
Num-) Length of | Length of | Breadth of | symphysis
ber. skull. | brain-case.| brain-case.| of mandi-
ble.
Om Cm. | Cm Cm
2 54. 0 21.3 21.3 15.5
6 53.5 OOTAns A | L901; 15.8
1 53.0 id i el ee eas 15.0
10 53. 0 21.7 23.1 15. 3
9 52.0 20.9 21.0 16.3
5 51.2 19.8 19.8 16.0
3 51.0 21.8 21.8 14.5
4 50.5 21.7 22.1 13.5
One of the two skulls (Nos. 2 and 5) regarded as belonging to a
separate species is from the Pacific Ocean. It was obtained by Pro-
fessor Reinhardt at Honolulu, while on the Galathea expedition.
o BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
Measurements of twenty-five skulls of Steno rostratus and the type-skull of S. perspicillatus.
Breadth of
beak—
: :
2 : ale
= Collection. Type of— Locality. nd Sr | Bales
= | fe |ea\s
g SEA Eat persia ieee (ace
g Bolos qos. lea 8
oS ra on cs 4
s 4 od A 2 es
i} | ro) =) o — ~
o mn H A el <{
Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm
a Bea || Bola hiehagd Maccoll fh HUN aRase allooecsoncssosoceacs||booace Bled Roos) |) Oye ae.
b S&GD!|lseee CL Olver eisierecteieiem wis O \a2n.d> 4 nee ae temieinasatimeoseee eee sete GPA etch Ie MSH Yue Sal
c Ste baat Yeo conasseasce Sa JTOntatus sc. MNGi = seece snes laeseee Hid SOKO" MOET) yo.
d Abd |. tO van tee Pee eee aero rast sectantll bos Cee ee en ee | 51.8 | 30.7| 10.5 | 5.1
, ‘ Liverpool Eu ;
e| 24,263 ; Bree OPENS cas meng Sel saa ae eee ee 54.0 | 33.6) 9.8] 4.5
APN. UPA ACR IES 8 oy ee oS ameal pooh boo se coocecel|: Hon teccsacnsocaee||Sonccr 52.8 | dl. 1 | 10.5 | 52
GAN ODN, G49" | Sas 0 arcs cence ek | SRR Osea ee Cre | rest eke Meee eee ere Pa 51.5|20.5| 97] 4.8
h a uta KOO) ceraa/aime lane iarete | etee mua eis oi stetetoteters | tela cerevatsteretetetereratererall ristetarats 54,4 | 32.0 | 10.2] 48
v NG DROPS Ee cy epecno so6cla8| scobpocdddodonodl |] seneccbeomecoaosaleonuoc 54.4 | 31.9 | 10.2 4.8
Wl) Vth Gene leseeG Oy seccncocsscballscosdescogAcenos|losatcemoondscodoes||SiaS5¢ §3.4 | 31.7 | 9.5] 3.8
| 92. B69. 1 hee ddlio erase daclsra ae eer elie ee ae een (ieee 55.3 | 33.2 | 10.8] 5.5
B70, O97 060"| «os. decane ces emeumenee nest ee eee ee eee eee 50.8 | 29.2 | 10.2] 5.5
RTO 24S 25091! Gov c hee ache sek oo | ee sess | ee wee ee oe Lee 53.0| 30.1] 98] 5.5
AES nL GB lial scesosseeecte cesaes ae eee oes Indian Ocean(?).|.-.-.- 51.5 | 30.7 | 10.2] 4.4
0 INC Oe NY Oe eee | Se seemceoccosdodllasanconopnaccocaor Ad..| 48.7 | 29.0] 10.8] 6.1
p 1676 | Oxford Mus..... OF |ecobencosisceciaos||bodnonobooassccscs Ad..| 50.8 | 30.5] 10.4] 4.8
qd ED! || ja LO civic ste rarete ees ictel | nie cleterareeretareieis te eiall eyatae era eictere te cloetcione Jr 49.3 | 30.2} 9.2) 4.1
Yr 1G68 4})..2:5- 0) a5 os oes scien asall swears woeme rela oie ae staloieis emtetersi sien Ad..| 51.3 | 32.0 9.8 4.6
8 24 | Mus. Pays-Bas....| D. reinwardtti| Java..........-.|.---- 52.0 | 34.0] 9.0] 3.9
t 257 |. 2-30! . cesses eeciemll aah ema steerasnclscelisemerecccs Se eeeeee PE ae) SOS ale ee | ese coos
u 26) )|-ma\Ovseaiee ote satel saber wiswasesice indian! Oceine.-|seeees 50:6) 32.4) 9.5| 43
v 80. | ce vO secctesscerees beeteeeseeieceee (QUE edesor ead adesoc 53.5 | 32.0 |(2)11.0} 6.0
w ‘cet Otiea cance ceeetee Coe emctetemeee Atlantic Ocean .|...-.- 50.0 | 30.2) 9.5] 4.7
x ¥e cH) < c.scmslsincate sre) Saconeerneeteent Indian Occan ...|-.--.-. 52.8 | 31.8 | 10.4] 5.0
y 27 oO oc ccensseeciacllnoasckapeameemoe|eccmmece medics sean aetles 48.8 | 29.0] 10.5| 4.7
§Berlin Univ. Zool. | S. perspicilla- Bris
COG eceoee Fa } South Atlantic..|9Ad.| 49.9 | 29.3} 11.1] 5.8
/
STENO ROSTRATUS AND PERSPICILLATUS. an
Measurements of twenty-five skulls of Steno rostratus and the type-skull of S. perspicillatus.
@ |e Pee ia See ie
= Zo Ha ixtremity | Breadth |Temporal iS a
% _|Ba rs of beak to—| between— | fossz. n g sy
dz) 6 a2 a
a So Silke. = ; 2 S 2
RS Os oe || cil |) es 5 ss PaaS a ag
He oel = | e2l oa |e ae Sh (SsPSj las aos ae
83 eaa| 4 | 58) ag) ze S| fSi\as/ae| 3
SoMGieell a || Oy | era || © 5,3 Se Se oa &
om jeHae] § eet || WEST fe | Ses) noe FS a os | E-m =
Ss \?s3 a Sde}]an | oo Sey a az <7 Sx
fais, 8 o | Sa) 29 | ee aS % Rls EE 3
D pr ual Olney Bw iS) : q H
icc] oR] S S| SHH s He | q a a = v
atieed) Bl. |Se/° | 2 i/se| ele] |a-le (se) 2
2 PSE] & 2D si |; 2 ao} A B a a a = I
BH 2) Cy A be se 3) i) ce) oO Co) >) e
ia) id) al |
23—24
has a8 ReSare sae Beare Aneacel ere ee sii U2 rete tall oem | scleretast lite cies <|| teiatoetel| eters iets SS5=ok
20—21
Baas 8 \acsu SA cee Wee eee 20.0 | 16.0 |..... TEEN [ese eee Oo a 8 1a
21—20
5c aes ao ede teat eee eee (ee 18.0 | 15.5 |..... BE eine R., ln | AC 3
21—21
(27) eeeedel lesoucdl Cees Geeeeet epee ee. ee LOMO LOST? |r ciate Marcel ns ereiets | noses |simmre'= c[law eta aa ae
20—21
Syl Sag ks ee a2 | 1926)| Ae belles cos ee Sateen | eee [aces al netes is a
24—23
z 3.7 Serle least GN@ ekbes | shyt eee oI EE OM DEO EGS zee Ss| lsaarese|ticeces| loomecs —
32 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
STENO PERSPICILLATUS Peters.
Delphinus (Steno) perspicillatus, Peters, Monatsber. der K. Akad. Berlin, 1876, pp.
360-366, pls. 2, 3.
The reasons for regarding this species as distinct from S. rostratus
have been given on p. 25. It differs apparently only in external charac-
ters. Peters’ specimen was a female, and was taken in the Atlantic
Ocean, in 32° 29/ 7” 8S. lat, 2° 1’ W. long. The measurements of the
skull of this individual are, for purposes of comparison, included in the
foregoing table of measurements of S. rostratus (p. 30).
3. TURSIOPS Gervais.
Tursiops, Gervais, Hist. nat. des Mamm., 11, 1855, p. 323. (Wide Flower.)
This genus is distinguishable from Prodelphinus principally by its less
numerous and larger teeth. Irom Sfeno it differs by reason of its short
mandibular symphysis and more numerous vertebrae.
The numerous species described by Gray were founded chiefly upon
single skulls, and their true relationships are, therefore, not readily to
be made out. From such evidence as we possess, however, there appear
to be four species, as follows: Tursiops tursio (Fabricius); Tursiops
catalania (Gray); Tursiops abusalam (Riippell); Tursiops gillii Dall.
Tursiops aduncus, Hemp. and Ehrenberg, may or may not prove to be
distinct, but as we have not had access to the original description of
that species, we venture no opinion regarding it.
TURSIOPS TURSIO (Fabricius).
Delphinus tursio, Fabricius, Fauna Groenland., 1780, p. 49.
Delphinus tursio, Bonnaterre, Cétologie, 1789, p. 21.
Delphinus truncatus, Montagu, Mem. Wern. Soe., 111, 1821, p. 75.
Tursiops tursio, Gervais, Comp. Rend., 1864, p. 876.
Delphinus metis, Gray, Zool, Erebus and Terror, 1846, p. 38, pl. 18.
Delphinus cymodice, Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, 1846, p. 33, pl. 19.
Delphinus eurynome, Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, 1846, p. 38, pl. 17.
Phocwna compressicauda, Lesson, Cétologic, p. 199.
At the beginning of my cetological studies, and before I had exam-
ined any European specimens, I was inclined to regard the “* Porpoise”
of the Atlantic coast of America as specifically distinct from the “ Bot-
tlenose” of European waters. I have since come to regard them as
identical. JI have examined side by side the skeletons of two old indi-
viduals of almost exactly equal size, one from off Hatteras, North Caro-
lina (22304 2), and the other from the coast of England (21,151), and
find only such differences as appear to me to be due to individual varia-
tion.
Before considering the types of the different species which have been
thus far described, I shall discuss the series of skulls in the national
TURSIOPS TURSIO. 33
This series comprises about forty-five specimens, of which
Of four only is the
collection.
ten are fragmentary, and three foetal or very young.
sex known.
The greater part of these skulls were collected by Dr. H. ©. Yarrow
at Fort Macon, North Carolina; others are from the fishing grounds at
Hatteras, Nor*h Carolina; and the remainder are from different points
on the Atlantic coast between New Jersey and Florida. The species
is perfectly well known to our fishermen. Large numbers have been
taken for many years at Hatteras, where I have myself witnessed the
capture of between eighty and ninety ina singleday. These individuals
were about equally divided between the two sexes, and were of all ages.
From the skulls above mentioned I have selected twenty-one perfect
specimens of nearly equal size for comparison. Their sex is unknown,
but from the fact that they were picked up at random on the beach, and
that males and females frequent this coast in about equal numbers, it
is highly improbable that all are males or all females. If there are
differences between the sexes as regards the proportions of the length
and width of the beak they should appear on comparison of the meas-
urements. ;
In his valuable paper on the cetaceans of Southwestern France, Dr.
Fischer calls attention to sexual differences in the skulls of Tursiops
tursio. His words (translated) are as follows :*
Upon examining together the heads of males and females, one per-
ceives that they present characteristic differences. ‘The beak is longer
and relatively narrow inthe males. * * * The heads of the females
are remarkable on account of the breadth of the beak at its base and
at the middle; the beak has consequently a more triangular form.
The measurements given by Dr. Fischer do not entirely bear out these
statements. From these the following results are obtained:
& leompared) #3 compared |~3compared| ¢7 compared
Comparison. with 9 6 with 9 4 with 9 11 with 95
(adulte). (Gpiphysée). | (épiphysée). (jeune).
Relative length of beak of male com-
ared with that of female..-..--..--. Longer. Shorter. Shorter. Longer.
Width of beak at base in male compared
with Gitto im female... 5.6 .----o istinct« 2
12005 (N. C.)./44.2 23.6 [12.0 | 7.9 | 4.7 [3.2,/20.0 [21.8 |.....]. sa 7 Sulures aistinehy ene:
12007 (N. C.).|44.3 j24.1 |10.8 | 6.4 | 3.6 |.---/20.5 |..-..|.-..- h Goal seeeeese Young; beach-worn.
= 7 lo 5 ay es wall 9 §, 24—242) Sutures distinct; teeth
12975 (N. C.).44.8 24.6 (10.3) 6.3 | 3.4 2.6 20.9 20.9 88.0 | 8.2) saaait taras ines
2071 i ee
Mook out 45.2 24.8 [11.4 | 6.9 | 9.8 |----21.3 [20.9 384 | 8 5) 2423? Sutures distinct; teeth
/ aCe : ; ‘ 3 ea el ena ek 2 9494) sharp; fresh.
Md.). | | 24—24))
11998 (N. C.)./45.6 24.2 ]12.4 | 7.9 | 4.2 [3.1 [20.8 [22.6 Hz 238) SuiMress | opens beach:
aaah De eas) worn.
: sae ae - ale al | 23992) Sutures distinet; un-
9 ) 7) 9 20.6 ;
12011 (N. C.)./45.6 24.7 [1.4 | 7.4) 4.7 2.9 20.7 20.6... ---§ Sees Mee Men eee
12009 (N. C.)./45.6 [24.6 (12.1 | 7.9 | 4.0 [2.9 [21.5 j21.9 |... 4 4 Do.
| |
| |
9 +) 46.9 195 ole 19 > | 2 28 Sutures open; — beach-
12013 (N. C.).46.2 25.1 [11.2 7.6 | 8.9 [3.0 21.6 [20.3 | - ee sity
12006 (N. C.)./46.3 !24.7 |11.8 | 7.6 | 4.1 13.1 [21.2 22.1 =a ae Do.
11994 (N. C.)./46.3 [24.7 [12.1 | 7.5 | 4.2 (3.0 PEEP ee saieg cee Sen Do.
| 5
12002 (N. C.)-/46.4 24.7 |11.7 | 8.0 | 4.2 [2.9 20.3 J21.8 |. : ; a Do.
11995 (N. C.)./46.4 [24.7 |L1.5 | 7.2 | 4.2 [3.0 jai.2 jaa. | ... |....§ a Do.
|
12004 (N. C.)./46.6 125.4 j11.8 | 7.5] 4.0 [2.9 21.4 [21.3 ].....].... ; — Do
| | |
11993 (N. C.)./46.7 25.7 |11.1 | 7.1 | 3.8 |2.8 |21.9 20.4 |.--..].... 2 Do.
12001: GN. G.)-146. 8) 24..8;|12.2 |-7.'5 | 4.0 18.4 (20.7 122.1, ls. <.-|.20. ; rer aa Do.
I | sane .
O74 (N os 5 | Viera tt a onl '91 9 199 9 | | 94 -94)| Sutures distinct; teeth
12274 (N. C.). 47.0 25.5 11.6 | 7.3 | 4,2 12,9 (21.2 |22.3 [39.7 | 8. az == sharp fresh
12276 (N. C.)./47.1 [25.5 |11.1 | 7.0 | 3.9 12.7 |21.8 |20.7 [39.0 | 8. 3) a Do.
| | | 24—24
12014 (N. C.)./47.3 95.8 [11.9 | 7.3) 4.23.2 219 215]... 5| 2626) Sutures open; — beach-
5 | Hegre | ig cl her ae | y orn.
22080 ( HL at tay 8 lyn 0 11.2 G.7 | 3.5 12.9 |23.2 |20.9 ; 23952) Sutures open ; fresh.
teras). 2 Petts H 2 | < | o \~" PTS | ERA RECESS EN | =i
| 1 | ' | |
The skulls, it will be observed, vary but little in length; they rise by
gradations of 6™™ and less from 43.2 to 47.8°".
We shall first examine the table for indications of sexual differences
in the relative length of the beak as compared with the total length of
36 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
the skull. The proportional length of the beak in the different speci-
mens, arranged in an ascending scale, is as follows: *
52.9 per cent. 53.4 per cent. 54.4 per cent.
53. 0 53. 7 54.5
baal 53.9 54.5
53. 2 54.1 54.9
53. 2 54.2 55. 0
53. 4 54.3 55. 4
53. 4 54.3 56.5
It appears that, excepting in the skuil with relatively longest beak,
the proportion of the length of the beak rises by gradations of four-
tenths of 1 per cent. and less.
The proportion of the width of the beak at its base to its length is as
follows:
41.5 per cent. 46.0 percent. | 47.4 per cent.
41.9 46,1 47.8
43.1 46.1 49. 0
43.5 46.4 49.2
44. 6 46.6 49.2
44.8 46.6 50. 9
45.5 47.1 51. 2
The gradations here are 1.7 per cent., 1.1 per cent., and less.
The proportions of the width of the beak at its middle compared with
its length rise by gradations of 1 per cent. and less, as follows:
24.8 per cent. 28.6 per cent. 30.3 per cent.
25. 6 29. 1 30. 4
26.5 29.5 30.8
27.5 29.7 32. 1
27. 6 30. 0 32. 4
BU! 30.2 32. 6
| 28. 3 30. 2 33.5
In all three cases the greatest variation is at the extremes of the
series. |
What do these proportions show? Apparently that the relative
length and width of the beak give no indication of the sex. Unless
these twenty-one specimens are all of the same sex, which is very im-
probable, for the reasons stated, the gradation of proportions is such
that it would be impossible to divide the females from the males.
The skulls of greatest absolute length have not relatively longest
beaks. The beaks which are relatively longest, as compared with the
absolute totai length of the skull, are, generally speaking, narrowest at
the base and middle in proportion to their absolute length.
The length of the mandible as compared with the length of the skull,
minus the beak, is greater in all of Dr. Fischer’s males than in his fe-
males. In both of my young males (20901 and 16504), on the contrary,
it is shorter than in the young female, 20962; and in one of the former
(20901) it is shorter than in the old female, 22304.
TURSIOPS TURSIO. ot
Dr. Fischer’s Nos. 8 and 9, of unknown sex, but which from a consid.
eration of the proportions he believes to be females, should, [ think, be
regarded as males if the length of the mandible alone is considered, but,.
on the contrary, as females if.the breadth of the beak is considered.
From the facts presented, and numerous others, I am inclined to re-
gard the variation in cranial proportions as of little value in determin-
ing the sex. From Dr. Fischer’s material and that to which I have had
access, however, we are able to get some idea of the limits of variation
in cranial proportions. The greatest and least proportions, as regards
the length of the beak in thirty-five specimens, are as follows:
Proportion of length of beak to total length of skull:
Greatestia-sercssccisecoac 58.2 per cent. (Dr. Fischer, No.1, ¢ trés adultc).
eas bees ae aes ccax oseces 52.9 per cent. (11997, Fort Macon, young).
ENotec..2..:% 48.7 per cent. in foetus, 24300, Hatteras. |
Proportion of width of beak at base to its length:
Greatest... =... -..---------51.9:per cent. (Dr. Fischer, No: 4,-9, épiph:):
WGCASt yen see ee Sacco 41.5 per cent. (22080, Hatteras, not old).
[Note ......-.48.7 per cent. in fetus, 24300, Hatteras. |
Proportion of width of beak at middle to its length:
Greatestsa fe cccosatie cess 26.7 per cent. (Dr. Fischer, No. 11, 9, épiph.).
Meas base cao Sierrcisatse ects 24.8 per cent. (22080, Hatteras).
Note: -e.---- 31.6 per cent. in foetus, 24300, Hatteras. ]
The skull absolutely longest of this series is Dr. Fischer’s No. 1, a
male “tres adulte,” 55°"; my largest specimen is No. 22304, old female,
52? Qem
aoe,
Tursio eurynome Gray.
I pass now to the consideration of the species identical with or allied
to 7. tursio. The first of these is 7. ewrynome, Gray, founded on a
single skull, No. 356a, in the British Museum. The chief characters
which Gray gives are cranial proportions. Regarding its relation-
ships he says:
The skull of this species is most like D. tursio; but the nose is one-fourth longer
than the length of the head, slenderer and more rounded, and the teeth smaller. *
In the diagnosis of D. tursio, however, he has: ‘ Skull-nose five-
ninths the entire length.” On comparing his measurements of 7. eury-
nome, it appears that this proportion exists here also. In relative
breadth the beak exceeds several of the North Carolina skulls, notably
No. 22304, 2, from Hatteras, which is only 3"™ larger. It agrees very
closely in absolute size of parts with Dr. Fischer’s ¢ No.1. In none
of its relative proportions does it fall outside the limits of variation of
the series discussed on page 35. Speaking of this skull and others in the
series, Gray himself says: ‘These are all very much alike.” +t Professor
Flower includes it in his “section” 7. tursio, with others, saying that
*Cat. Seals and Whales, p. 261
tSuppl. Cat. Seals and Whales, p. 75.
38 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
some of them ‘may be specifically distinet.”* With this skull, the type
of T. metis, and the skulls called 7. truncatus in the British Museum
before me, I wrote in my note-book, *‘ It is doubtful if any distinction
is to be made between these.”
For my own part I have no hesitancy in making 7. eurynome a syn-
onym oi 7. tursio. The species is founded on a single skull, and its
characters are drawn from proportions. It has been shown that neither
in absolute size nor in proportions dses it lie outside the iimits of vari-
ation of 7. tursio. It should be borne in mind that in cases of this
kind we can never hope to acquire specimens agreeing exactly with the
type. Among a thousand skulls of the same species it is doubtful if
any two absolutely alike could be found.
Tursio metis Gray.
The second of Gray’s species to be considered is his Tursio metis.
Gray states that the skull “ differs from Delphinus Tursio’s in the nose
being much shorter and more conical and acute.”+ As a matter of
fact, the beak is relatively longer than the skull of Z. tursio from
Montagw’s collection in the British Museum (353a), which Gray includes
in the latter species in the Catalogue. That the beak is more acute than
in many specimens of 7. tursio is true; but it is less acute than in No.
22080 of that species from Hatteras, which was picked up on the beach
with others by myself. Comparing it with the latter, I find that the
beak is a trifle shorter, but somewhat wider both at the base and at
the middle, and that the intermaxille are also wider. I cannot but
regard it as a narrow-beaked specimen of 7. tursio.
Tursio cymodice Gray.
Tursio cymodice is founded on a youngish skull. It has an almost
exact counterpart in No. 20767, from Point Lookout, Maryland.
Re 20767, Lur-
pre zee, siops tursio.
Measurements. sep: as Point
cymodice. Taskout
Type. .0okout,
a Maryland.
Cm. Cm.
Totaliloneth-esaeeeeeeeeees see 45.7 45.2
Men gt hiors bea keecesee ese esa 24,9 24.8
Breadth of beak at maxillary notches . 11.6 11.4
Breadth of beak at middle. .-...----.-- 6.8 6.9
d
Professor Flower very justly says:
T. cymodice may be at once expunged from the list. It is founded on a single skull
of a very young animal.}
*Flower, P. Z. 8., 1883, p. 487.
t Cat. Seals and Whales, p. 257.
{ Proc. Zool. Soe. London, 1883, p. 480.
It is interesting, however, to know that it is in all probability simply
TURSIOPS TURSIO.
a young specimen of 7. tursio.
In the following table are brought together measurements of the
type skulls of 7. metis, euwrynome, and cymodice, and of some other skulls
in the British Museum, labeled tursio, metis, ete.:
Table of measurements.
TURSIOPS TURSIO.
39
~» Ay
Breadth of | = 2a
beak—- Q Ba
lo
: ba | 75
K = Ra | ady
2 op lisse 2% |'Sed
a Collection.| Type of— Locality. ; @ ae| ¢ Ae 258
a o| 2 2 a/ sa rm | Qe
2 it En a Se s 6s a8
=] 3 A ° 5) “at Ss | = =e
to Lo] 2 a Of A = an)
= Bae Sali c Bf ose ae
a Sih res = | = Sales S==
3 4 O° i) ~ re) 2 SSeS
6) m| A H | 4 4 | o
Om.| Cm. | Cm. | Cm.| Cm. | Cm.
356a@ | Brit. Mus.| 7. ewrynome ..| North Sea ?..--. ae to2560)|) B0S0n | Tesonl) aso) |e 4a0 9.9
357 ey Gees On etisnns cet dlnsek seme caes castes ee WeDo alse Osan onOn tmiecalie ano hal
350d |..-do ....- EN CUNVOORCE acct namics cies aoe aa Oe 4ont) P24 On elles le Osnialn aaa hal
BOs Cel ee Ore een conime ea nee Seal ||aea see ccenecie aces 5486) bs0sonhds ball One 5.6 10.9
BOOM | PeAAG csaac cesses cos scene. Erith of Forth 2}2.-.| 57.8 | 32:0) | 1585) 957) 5.7 11.2
353h AGRON 20 RR BOE te BOIS] OS ee i eee Sa ees | Pres alle 8.7 4.5 9.9
BHO) beottley cedacoletctdetsetod ape Herne Bay.-----|-- eGR Sy ECS SB EYE |) Ea) hte |) abe
a Extremity | Breadth | Temporal a 5 =
3 of beak to—| between— fosse. r=] | 3
. a Sl eH ©.
oe te ' Ce 2 © a
3 Ss |S A iS) : a Ee AO
H a MS) - | 3 S = SS 2 a5
B ill pies oulle-Seoallis, nS ere || to 5 x
2 [oe | Be | a3 3 | 635 |s2| ee 3
5 ° Op | aa i OL. oF a Six | $5 | 9-5 Py
=| Ss eS || ele |) oa | Bile E 5 +
© = || si 21396 Ee te 20 ‘a
= =) oad see ||| sa GR aa 7 at >) a1 =
&p = 3 5s2|°9 a : oF o = a
=) reels lec ee [se ay crepe tt aise loess ieee Wicestes the 2
eave aso Ee iaiet| Sess Neer | ean) | eae peso tas :
3 i) a A 3 si Eps ay D Oo ay =}
Ss) ee eae let eollee ier ates ae |emiab lee: eer A Zi
Om. | Cm.| Cm.| Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm.| Cm.| Cm. | Cnr. | Cm. | Cm. 9595
3360 | 25.6 | 5.8 | 35.6 | 38.6 | 23.0 |...... 10.6! 7.8] 45.6] 62|246| 95|} 55-55
a af 23—23
357 95.4 4.8 | 35.6 | 36.0 | 21.3 | 16.4 | 11.7 8.3 | 44.2 6.7 | 24.5 9.8 ; 9999
Be 6 21—23
355a | 20.8 | 5.2 | 28.9) 31.1|19.8/164| 99] 7.2] 381] 6.2)/208| 8 |% o7-97
5 A r eo 20
Slag 5S) a, 35374) Sees aa 4 | 15.0) |) 19.7 Osh s(t <2 [Scene eecl 9c | apecee
§ 21—20
353g | 26 7 6:0) |) 39045) 41-7) |2282:0! |) 16: 9! |) 1352 8.5 | 50.8 S201 22657) 1059 2 O51
21—26
3538h | 23.4 Heston aed) leas k heline oe ON OM metayo) |celeo 2256: 9.4 ; 520
| |e. 24—98
357b | 26.2 GEGuiseuleeesce 23.9 | 16.8 | 11.1 7.9 | 46.7 6.7 | 26.2 Ar ’ 9394
| |
AV) BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
TURSIOPS CATALANIA (Gray).
Delphinus catalania, Gray, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1862, p, 143.
Tursio catalania, Gray, Cat. Seals and Whales, 1856, p. 252.°
This species is distinguishable from 7. tursio by its smaller size, rela-
tively longer beak, and style of coloration.
The skull (No. 1391a) of the larger of the two specimens reported by
Gray, though only 43.4 long, belonged to an adult animal, as is at-
tested by the fact that from this individual were taken two foetuses.*
The length of the beak in this specimen is 58 per cent. of the entire
length of the skull, and in the second type-skull (No. 1391b), 57.8 per
cent. So long a beak is rarely or never found in 7. tursio.
The lower surfaces of the body in both of Gray’s specimens were cov-
ered with spots or blotches of dark color, a style of coloration which,
so far as I am aware, has never been observed in 7. tursio.
There are some peculiarities in the types which merit attention. In
No. 1891a, the larger of the two skulls, the pterygoids are widely sepa-
rated (the tips being 5™ apart), while in 1391) they are in contact in
the median line. The relation of the parts in the former specimen
would, according to Professor Flower’s arrangement of the genera,
throw it into Sotalia, to which genus this skull taken alone would prob-
ably have been relegated. But there is no other essential difference
between this and the second skull, and taking into consideration the
data we have regarding the two individuals, there can be little doubt
that they belong to one and the same species.
The front mandibular teeth are much worn in 13914@, and considerably
also in the second specimen. The symphysis in both is moderately
keeled. The intermaxille are very convex and high and somewhat
“humped” near the middle of the beak. They are apart anteriorly.
The triangular prenarial area extends 8.2 from the nares and is concave.
Professor Flower has already assigned to this species No. 3012 in the
Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, and No. a3070 in the Paris
Museum from “China Seas.” To these should probably be added No.
a3059 in the Paris Museum, whose label bears the words “? Mers d’Inde.”
Measurements of these three specimens and of the types are appended.
* Gray, le.
TURSIOPS ABUSALAM. Al
Table of measurements.
TURSIOPS CATALANIA.
= :
t Breadth | = e 3
ot beak— | = Ba
= ee
———| 4 | 2
‘ 2 z= =
8 Pace B= |So5
= 7 ee | Ces
a Collection. Type of— Locality. leo diese Nees | cou Ws Ale
A Sle |2 |S2| 3 lesleee
: Sle | Si aja lee
fs B/2 | [22/8 |28| 852
= ala wm |POa!| so ls $+e8
eS “ ee) A Kae | aes 0) ons
= a | 2 o | 2 |e Hos
(o) CAN ESE SE) Uy Rae Ray ONC
Om.| Om.| Cm.; Om.\ Cm.| Cm
1391a | Brit. Mus....-..-.. T. catalania.| Cape Melville, Aust.| ? |43.4| 25.2)10.2| 6.1 | 7.3 7.4
ASOID:|s=2dO eas -wsee cae acres sae C. Flattery, Austr ..| 2 [141.3] 23.8|10.4] 6.1 | 3.3, Tiel
SPIOM RCO MURS 2252-0)" 25s cces aoa | eae ucamewonessaceesee .--|43.6]| 25.4/ 10.4] 5.1 | 3.2 7.0
23070)|' Mus: d’ Hist. nat.*-|.--......-.-- China Seas..........|..-|43.6| 25.4} 10.9) 5.9 | 3.3 7.6
BIO) Aen CORSee ase essa See eae Mers d’Inde ?...... |...|46.2| 26.0/10.9}| 5.8 | 3.0 8.1
| | L —_ = = = 2 B.
é : : : x
A Extremity | Breadth | Temporal A fe =
5 (of beak to—|! between— fossx. r= 8 5
fn Sse : n 3 ee
2 eye | | 6 | @ Da
Be ee ae eee |e. ofa Bain are jai
2 a Ps ee a Pep iig=yieea bas s| 3 =
a = ore = 0 Se £3 a | 22/22/85) 8 3
5s = || SS aee loss a Soll se || See, | Sa £
| = Sel steh Ieee em a S| Sr)| Bea Chet
© “ ele 5 a os See | oe og : 3
=) Som | Bt | 8 ous ; eS 3 eye PS
e/ 22 |s2)°8) 2 |88#/214),2/28 12 |s8/2] 2
Ss 2 a4 = S = | A | See 2 = 2 | za | 2 a E 8
a o a zy a oes eres Co) L 3) o) ) 2 = re
S) A fH Tiere tt ah) eet H} A} RIA RA A a A
if ae ee be ae :
Cm. | Cin | Cm. | Cm: | Cm. | Cmm| Cm. | Cm. | Gm. | Om. | Cm. | Gm. | Cm.
| | | | | 9
1391a| 21.3; 4.7| 28.7|30.5/185|128; 9 | 7 |37.4; 66|211| 7710.76.15 2828
| | | U 25-25
| oa
13915|19 | 5.8|277]29.3:19 |141| 94] 7.5 't5.6| i¢1(\t19.3| 7.9|0.6 | $2424
| | 02342 23
2_9
3120 29.9 | 4.7 | 30.5 2oee| LBs Aged) O85, wD STA Gis e208 OF We iad. leacroee ; ; =
a3070 | 20.8] 5.6| 28.2]....-. 19 |12.9| 9.7} 7.41 37.9| Go|... ay ul eee ; aes
lr ae | 23-2:
} | | | | =
a3059 | 21.6| 5.3 | 30.5|...... 20: t | 4): 92a) 6.9) 1999/9) | 508 lee. Nome (3) a ; 25-25
| | 25-25
* Montigny, 1851.
+ About 2™™ should be added for breakage of tip of beak.
TURSIOPS ABUSALAM (Riippell).
Delphinus abusalam, Riippell, Museum Senckenbergianum, rt, 1845, p. 140, pl. xii,
figs. 1-6.
This species closely resembles 7. catalania, and may be identical with
it. Riippell has appended no measurements of the skull to his admira-
ble description, but from his figure it would appear that the beak, though
rivaling that of 7. catalania in length, has the same proportional breadth
as in T. tursio. The teeth are slightly more numerous than is usual in
the latter species, and in this again we are reminded of 7. catalania.
In color T. abusalam agrees with neither of the species with which I
have compared it, the upper parts being dark sea-green. T. tursio, as
42 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
I have observed it, is always clear plum)beous gray above. The color of
dead specimens is very dark, but I have never observed a greenish tinge
in the coloration. The types of 7. catalania were lead-colored. We
might divide, therefore, the three species by their coloration as fol-
lows:
1. Upper parts lead-colored.
as Bellysspottede.:= 2 cnes eines cesoceemeteae Beene nines Seen e es T. catalania.
bs Bellysunspottedi. 5222. c.2., «ueision wees cota ue cele c erate nm Oise oeeetacee T. tursio.
2. Upper parts dark sea green.
Belly spotted... snccene wee eee st See oe pene cleric eee eee T. abusalam.
The proportions of the body are much alike in 7. catalania and fhe
abusalam, as will be seen from the following comparative table:
T. catalania | T.abusalam
: (from Macgil-| (from Riip-
Measurements. levray, re- | pell, reduced
duced to me- | to meters),
ters), 9. ® adult.
Total Jenothiscce=<2---556e-- Lae i eee ys es ae 2. 058 1.949
Tipiot snout toleyenass-o sense seer oe 0. 305 0. 297
Tip of snout to anterior base of dorsal fin... eee 0.915 0. 893
Height of dorsal fin (vertical) ............... £3 0. 203 0. 216
Distance between the extremities of the flukes...... 0. 559 0. 514
The skeleton of 7. catalania is unknown; for 7. abusalam Riippell
gives the following vertebral formula: C.,7; D.,12; L., 16; Ca., 26=61.
In two of the skeletons of 7. tursio in the national collection, how-
ever, but twelve pairs of ribs are present, and in one of these, which
appears to be perfect, the total number of vertebrie is but sixty-one.
We can, therefore, make no separation on the basis of the total num-
ber of vertebree.
From such indications as we possess, this species appears to be inter-
termediate between Z. tursio and T. catalania, but most closely allied
with the latter. It would not be a matter of surprise if if should prove
to be identical with 7. catalania.
Since the foregoing remarks were written Dr. W. Kobelt, director of
the Senckenberg Museum, has very obligingly sent me Some measure-
ments of the type-skull in the collections of that institution. From
these it appears that the beak is longer than in T. tursio, as already
stated, and is much narrower at the base than in either 7. tursio or 7.
catalania. Its breadth at the middle is about as in the latter species.
The breadth at the orbits, however, is less than in either of the others.
I subjoin the measurements:
Measurements of the type skull of Tursiops abusalam, 2.
Centimeters.
Totallength .. 2.6 eee ee eee eee pee tpth LO eC Mise te ts oe Lh BeOS 46.0
Léneth of Deak. - 2.26. 38 ee er ee 27.0
Breadthior beak betorespiemoteheseeeeen eee een eee eee Sen Saree sie 9.2
Breadth of beak ‘ait itssmtd die soccer eee pee eae tre 6.5
Breadth of intermaxill at same point -
Breadth between centers of orbits
Ss PO apogee See ert ee eine art ieee ata ee
TURSIOPS GILLII. 43
TURSIOPS PARVIMANUS Liitken.
Tursiops parvimanus Liitken, K. Danske Vidensk. Selsk Skr., 6th Raekke, rv, 1887,
p- 354.
Dr. Liitken has described under this name a small form, which is
closely allied to 7. tursio.
It differs chiefly in having the third digit longer than the second, with
more numerous phalanges. The formula of the phalanges is 2, 6, 8, 3, 1.
The vertebral formula is as follows: C., 7;.D.,13; L., 15; Ca., 27=62.
In color the species is blackish on the back and fins, and grayish-white
on the belly.
The species is founded on a single young individual from the Adri-
atic. A diagnosis is given in the second part of this work.
TURSIOPS GILLII Dall.
Tursiops gilliit, Dall, Proc. Cal. Acad. Sci., v, 1873, p. 13; Scammon, Marine
Mammalia, 1874, p. 288.
This species was founded by Mr. Dall upon a single mandible, No.
13022, from Monterey, Cal.,* collected by Capt. C. M. Scammon. It be-
longed apparently to an adolescent individual. Although the mandi.
ble, as a rule, possesses no characters which will serve for the distinc-
tion of closely allied species, there is one in this case which seems of
value, namely, the comparative size of the condyles. In this mandible
the greatest diameter of the condyle is contained twice only in the
greatest depth of the ramus. In all the mandibles of 7. tursio, on the
contrary, the greatest diameter of the condyle is contained two and a
half times in the greatest depth of the ramus. The comparatively large
condyles of 7. gillii are found again in a skull of Tursiops, 54™ long,
from Lower California, No. 12054, collected by Captain Scammon. This
Skull belonged to an aged individual; the sutures are largely obliter-
ated and the teeth are much worn.
From its proportions alone this skull could scarcely be distinguished
from one of 7. tursio, but the relations of the bones on the under surfaces
are decidedly different. In 7. tursio the optic canal rises gradually to
the level of the antero-internal border of the frontal, and the whole in-
ferior surface of the frontal is nearly plane. In 7. gillii the optic canal
ends abruptly without reaching the level of the prominent rounded an-
tero-internal border of the frontal, which latter bone is deeply concave.
In the wall of the temporal fossa of 7. gillit the lower part of the
parietal appears as a narrow band between the anterior margin of the
* Although this specimen is not marked ‘‘type” there can be no doubt but that it
is the one from which the species was described. Mr. Dall, who kindly examined the
mandible at my request, could not decide whether it was his type or not, fourteen
years having passed since he last saw it. It corresponds, however, absolutely to
his measurements, and is furthermore, the only separate mandible of a Tursiops from
California in the collection,
44 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
squamosal and the posterior margin of a backward extension of the
frontal, while in Z. tursio the frontal has no backward extension and
the parietal is broad inferiorly. Numerous other differences are pres-
ent, which, with those mentioned, I have not found in any of the varia-
tions of 7’. tursio.
Of the external appearance of this dolphin we know but little. Scam-
mon, from two ‘*momentary observations,” describes it ‘“‘as black all
over, lightened a little below.” Tis outline resembles that of a 7. tursio,
except that the dorsal fin is narrower than is common in that species.
Table of measurements.
TURSIOVS GILLII.
~ a
Breadth of | o
o
beak— 2) eg
a ~~
= Bt | Ss
bs eras tes
i H a =
cin ) S =] o at
H = Hoa |dao.
3 2 Type setae $x | eae
= Collection. ST Locality. oa: 4/358 5° | ae
= of— . co = Z . A» | On CH
= s ) AS = — | HWE
=} gy SS 2 Ke | wo; e Bes
eS sy a) Se ow I cs 5 iA
= a ‘2 Sal) hes Evel ies
eb S| = Fete) et | RG Sa eee tras
2 Bee Sas m | £9
= a a eo | 8 s S eae 8
eI = A Sal a) |
x 4 ° o » »~ = BH Orn
5 73) HH H 4 = a § Be eo oe eee A
a >| ca. | eoeeos Ag a | BS | s2| ga .
= ° Z = S 6.0 Ss rs | HS | os =
—] 3 g a] aA he a= g n = = — mp]
A + Bl oie | ers Se Bl/H#8| Fo oH
© fp |) sp | Eh. | osce as | ° 29 °
s ° 133) e8 | aa Fuel ae Cured A\ gs Ps
o = a vo
© 12|2 |ee\3 | 2 |48\ 8) 2| eis |e |e 3
$s A) | sald Bae ieee |) ter) erelee A = 3
3 co) 3 a =| > Rated i) © (3) co) C) o K
6) =| 4 | °o | =| A | =| A A
Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm.; Cm. | Cm. ; Cm Cm.) Cm. | Cm Cm
C8079) Seas csl seeeen||coces| emacs DS ee Repsol Seen SSOcee SeSeral esoeen! oborc feseeme emaoac|hosodecdos
§ 249
15781 | 21.6| 4.1 | 29.7 |...... 16235 001S:(0)'|" SBE 9: PA ONS UE eects see 6:6) |/25.28 4747
145-45?
3885 | 2001 | 6,.0"|)30%0'| 30.5 | 16:6: | 145°] “Pa l5. 2] 5.8 \eoeee sere nt Ge7alecnee ; ~ 46-46
7063 | 22.6 | 4.9 | 30.7 | 322|16.1| 144) 7.1] 5.3].....-]-...-.|--.-.- G06. eee § Be
807A al ese ssc ceal aceon eee UG OT reese ice foes Sl Nes | et ee ee | ee eens | to 50-18
CEN SS Seeel peceac lococcdl|basecis 1 Ses eet soenaal lassaoelsecocd lssscud| [codecs seraoc esogen poop sqb00e
GBOTD a Soe cleo smi srel | seminars erertere TY AC el eee ears Sees selnerac| (sencis pescasl temeco |scoccalleobeuarocd
CA fel ieeoeeel eeccca Secace bases TONS eee cali Sere cle te ce octets | ecole cel eeserete | etree eal lalate tatete miatal=
C8\ eed Re Ges eeesed laciciecrel lokcaas a) ee (eee | ee es i see eee soees (bac ao5|(>ceors aobiCeins
G50TE | sees snss ermal a ae rece i Ly PR ee eae) ae tees Pe Se Necro nacre |i Manos \Secctorocor
< 50-50
6318 | 24.1 428 Sle Ol eeteee Ud: 1452 7.10 6.2 | 38.5 iw || anal (ofl be ec } 51-50"
251-252
5 Ses
PS Oe ee Boaik |lewererete 8 HEE ON raters sell erate mre Oa | eererets edbe |lsorsaa|/vscase ; 48-49
20873. | 23:3.) So 71°3208 | SHB lee Pea el ie eee eee eee cera ea _ 48-48
UPR basrec 33:6. | 85,2) 1698) 13, 8a Sule SuSNltsse9n | Os4a eeeeen |eeere| seterte ; 51-54"
48-50
GI08T {eke e oles ces seeeealleeemes tt See eeingl ee cron) seaecel lanacoe Bo ee ctl (oes io eer Nae a7
Bvia| ee hee 34.8 | 35.5|17.6|138| 7.5| 5.8|----. Be sos | [ee 0 ; a5
|
* Three extra teeth behind forming a double row.
DELPHINUS DELPHIS. 49
Delphinus major Gray.
Among the skulls resembling D. delphis in the various European
museums are some which have been made the types of distinct species.
Among these species are D. longirostris, major, fulvofasciatus, Moorei,
Walkeri, janira, and Forsteri. It now becomes our duty to consider
these specimens, in order to determine whether they are to be regarded
as identical with D. delphis or as distinct.
I will first take up Delphinus major Gray (Cat. Seals and Whales,
1866, p. 396).
Gray’s first characteris: “Skull larger than that of D. delphis.”. The
total length, according to my measurements, is 52.7°™. This exceeds
by 6 Fischer’s largest specimen of D. delphis (D. d. fusus A.). Another
character lies in the length of the beak, which exceeds three times the
width of the beak at the base. This relation holds true of five of M. Fisch-
er’s eleven females of D. delphis and of one of the two males. The depth
and width of the palatal grooves is a third character in Gray’s diagno-
sis. Regarding this character I can only say that my observation
teaches me that the grooves vary more or less in depth and width in
different specimens of D. delphis, and that I cannot, therefore, consider
this variation as of special importance.
I compared the type-skull (No. 1472a, Brit. Mus.) in the British Mu-
seum with skulls of D. delphis, and have since compared the photograph
of the same, which I was permitted to have made, with skulls in the
National Museum. Asa result, I cannot find character which seem to
me of importance as distinguishing this skull from those of D. delphis.
The mandible is rather narrower than is common in PD. delphis, and the
alveolar border is less concave, but these are details which are not of
prime importance.
As regards proportions, the skull of D. major has a relatively longer
and narrower beak and narrower brain-case than the majority of D.
delphis which I haveexamined. Itis, however, approached very closely
by the much smaller skull, No. a3088, Mus. d’Hist. nat., from the coast
ot Algeria (see Table, p. 48, No. 9). The proportions in the two
skulls are as follows:
Na. anes | D. major, No
Proportions. No. a3088, | 1472a, ty pe,
Paris. | Brit. Mus.
Om. Om.
Totaldenpthes--.:esscers elses see ae 45. 0 52.7
Propor tion of length of beak to tot al | Per cent. Per cent.
Len Mb hie steers esos eee dees 62. 7 63.8
Proportion of width of beak at mid-
dleitoutsilenothis---scee.cecemose 17.0 16.6
Proportion of width at orbits to total
length, minus length of beak.-.---- 95. 2 90. 8
18378—Bull. 36——-4.
50 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
There is plainly considerable difference even here, but the approxi-
mation is such that in default of finding good characters for D. major,
I am unable to regard it other than as a large individual of D. delphis.
Skull No. 1625a, in the collection of the British Museum.
Among the skulls differing from the ordinary D. delphis in some re-
spects is one in the British Museum, No. 1625a, labeled D. longirostris.
In this skull the pterygoids are somewhat broader at the free ex-
tremity than is usual, and the breadth at the orbits is considerably less.
This skull is 4/°™ long, while the breadth at the orbits is but 14%. No.
574a, in the Cambridge Museum from the Bahamas (see Table, p. 48, No.
15), which isone of the skulls having the least width at the orbits, meas-
ures 17.6 at this point, though but 47.4e™ in total length. T am un-
able, however, to discover any other characters by which to separate it
from D. delphis, and regard it inadvisable, therefore, to remove it froin
that species. :
Delphinus fulvofasciatus Hombron and Jacquinot,
The type of D. fulvofasciatus, Hombron and Jacquinot, No. @3025, in
the Paris Museum, from Hobart Town, Tasmania, differs from the aver-
age D. delphis,so far as I was able to determine, only in being somewhat
broader across the orbits, as is also the case with No. a3071 in the same
museum from Tasmania, and labeled D, tasmaniensis. The length of
these skulls and the width at the orbits are compared in the following
table with the same measurements of a skull also in the Paris Museum,
from Algeria, and with No. 20873 in the U. S. National Museum, froin
Block Island:
ie 3 : ote idth at
| Number. Collection. Locality. Type of— eed Wi cea
Cm. Cin.
3025 | Mus. d’His. Nat-.| Hobart Town..... D. fulvofasciatus ------.--- 44 5 lifes
MBOile aan Om aeesas seas Masnranmide 2) as. 5 Labeled D. tasmaniensis - - 44.5 16.8
GB0T2)\e- 3d Oe pene aera GoastofsbGraniltienocecen ee eee ee eter 46.5 18.6
208735) WASaNeM oan Block Island. Rit \cte- se nec ceeoeeeoeeeeeess 46.7 igeal
No. 15, in the table on p. 48, is of about the same proportions as the
skull labeled D. tasmaniensis, but the locality is unknown; it may be
also from Tasmania.
We have, however, Professor Flower’s statement that he has ex-
amined a series of skeletons of (apparently) D. delphis from New Zea-
land waters and can find no characters by which to distinguish them
from D. delphis from the coast of Hurope.
The figure of the exterior of D. fulvofasciatusin the Voyage au Pole sud
DELPHINUS DELPHIS. DL
(Pl. xx1, Fig. 1), closely resembles drawing No. 1 in the national col-
lection, described on p. 45, but with the following differences: The
color of the light area of the sides in fulvofusciatus is pinkish, rather
than yellow, and there is no appearance of the crossing of color below the
dorsal fin, which is commonly characteristic of D. delphis. The white
of the belly extends to the flukes, which is not a common disposition in
D. delphis ; itis represented, however, in our drawing No. 2 (see p. 46).
Iinally, the gray mark at the base of the pectoral extends to the angle
of the mouth, rather than to the extremity of the mandible.
Measurements applied tothe figure agree very closely with M. Iischer’s
measurements of D. delphis and of specimens of the same in the National
Museum. ‘The measurements given in the text* do not agree at all
with the figure and are evidently from the dry skin, as would appear
from the following remarks: +t * Cedauphin amalheureusement perdu par
la dessiccation et le montage quelques-uns de ses caractéres.”
I do not think that the differences pointed gut are sufficient to war-
rant the separation of fulvofasciatus from delphis.
To the original description of D. nove-zealandia, which Jaequinot and
Pucheran regarded as probably the same as their D. fulvofasciatus, I
have not had access.
D. Forsteri Gray.
Delphinus Forsteri, Gray, is founded upon a drawing made by the
younger Torster. orster’s description of the individual from which
this drawing was made is mostly taken up with generic and super-
generic characters.
The colors are described as follows:
Color supra virenti-fuscus s. ferreus, subtus albus. Macula exolete alba discum
pinnarum dorsalis et pectoralium ocecupat, fascia alba trans rostrum.
Gray translates Forster’s description (Cat. Seals and Whales, p. 248)
and in the Synopsis (pl. 24) reproduces the drawing. The drawing does
not agree exactiy with the original description, the ‘fascia alba trans
rostrum,” for example, being replaced by a black band. The manner
in which the fins and flukes are depicted would lead one to believe that
the figure was from a specimen which had been dead for some time. The
eye is entirely too large. The indications of color-markings are very
unsatisfactory. Ido vot think that the figure is sufficiently accurate
to merit serious consideration, but it may, perhaps, be pronouced an im-
perfect figure of D. delphis.
The “ virenti-fuscus” of the back we find again in M. Fischer’s figures,
Pl: ty, t.1,, and: Pl..v, fig,-2;
As I have already stated, one of the ape Mens of D. delphis in the
* Voyage au Pole re Zoologies, ut, 1853, p. 38.
TENe- pao.
| Forster, Descriptionis animalium, etc., 1844, p. 280.
52 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
national collection, received from the -U. 8. Fish Commission, had a
large white area on the dorsal fin, and the presence of ‘‘a small white
spot on the disk of the dorsal and pectoral fin” * in D. Forstert would,
therefore, appear to have no special significance.
Delphinus janira Gray. \
Another species which appears to be identical with D. delphis is D.
janira of Gray. The type of this species, which is in the Bristol Insti-
tute, [did not have an opportunity toexamine. I did, however, measure
a skull in the British Museum, No. 1470a, which Gray labeled D. janira,
and which agrees in every particular with the figure of the type in the
Zoology of the Hrebus and Terror, except that the beak is a little nar-
rower and the opening between the intermaxillie proximally runs back
further and does not end so abruptly. This skull, which is 43.2 long,
agrees very closely with No. 7063 in the National Museum, from New
York Harbor (see table infra). Goth seem to represent rather small and
narrow-beaked individuals of D. delphis. Skulls Nos, 1470) and 1470¢
in the British Museum, the Jatter from Jamaica, and both labeled D.
janira, are defective, but do not seem to differ from the two skulls just
considered. These three skulls are rather small for their apparently
mature age, but I see no reason why they should be regarded as other
than small individuals of D. delphis. From these skulls we might be led
to suppose that there was a small race of D. delphis peculiar to the West
Indies, but the value of this supposition is lessened by the fact that the
type-skull of D. pomeegra, Owen, the next species to be considered, which
is like them in every particular, is from India.
Delphinus pomeegra Owen.
This skull, No. 1478a, in the British Museum, is quite defective. I
was unable to find any characters by which it could be distinguished
from the preceding. In the table on p. 56 are included measurements
of this skull and of skulls of D. janira.
Delphinus Bairdii Dali.
Another species whose distinctness has been questioned is Delphinus
Bairdii Dall (Proce. Cal. Acad. Sci., v, 1873, p. 12), founded on two skel-
etons of females from Cape Arguello, California. A male skeleton of
this species from Santa Cruz, Cal., was forwarded to the National
Museum and has a place in the register as No. 13802, but unfortunately
the specimen has disappeared, and all efforts on my part to rediscover
it have thus far proved fruitless. We have, however, in the national col-
lection two skulls from the Pacific coast, presumably of this species.
The smaller (No. 15403) was collected by Lieut. E. Bergland at the mouth
of the San Gabriel River, on San Pedro Bay, considerably south of Point
* Gray, Catalogue, p. 24°.
DELPHINUS DELPUHIS. 53
Arguello where the original specimens were obtained. The second skull
(No. 22305) was obtained by Mr. Charles H. Townsend at Monterey.
Both these skulls are defective; the smaller is young, while the larger is
quite old. In so far as they present characters for comparison I find
nothing by which to distinguish them from skulls of D. delphis from the
Atlantic coast.
Mr. Dall was unfortunately unable to compare his skeleton with that of
D. delphis, to which species D. Bairdii, if distinct, is undoubtedly most
closely allied. We have, however, for comparison, the measurements of
the exterior of the original specimens, given by Scammon (Marine
Mamm., p.100). I place such of these as are comparable by the side of
measurements of D. delphis from the Atlantic coast. he conformity of
the two series of measurements is certainly remarkable, and the lack of
agreement is apparently not more than would be found to exist between
four individuals of the same species.
D. Bairdii |
| Point Arguello.| p delphis 2
fay ie bee ). a 8. | D. delphis. |
Meaeremientat ?. Types. /Off No Man’s Relea
| _| Land, Mass. const. 2 |
(OPT UONS EG: ane el
|
Inehes. | Inches. Inches. Inehes.
MopallonGw sews anne sewatstameacciam cee aincas 19255 | S10 F555 79. 0
Mengthvotpectoralitinssseeecese snes mn cne soe 12.0 | 12.0 11.5 12.0
EE XpPANSIOMOMMUK ES) soa. basse sees series POLO elie USS 5) 18.0
Longitudinal width of flukes .........-.-.-- 5. 0 6.0 6.0 6.25
Heiphiohadorsaldines sce ssesesce= aes tee eee 7.0 The) 7.0 8.0
Extremity of snout to pectoral fin 20.0 | 20.0 18.0 18.0 |
Extremity of snout to dorsal fin .-...-- : 36.0 | 37.0 35. 0 Bio) |
Extremity of snout to angle of mouth... : PSS 12D 11.0 10.6 |
Extremity of snout to eye...--...-.--.---.-- ENON GREE 12.5 1250" |
Extremity of snout to blowhole .....---..-- 14.0 | 15.0 14.0 13.0
Guirthy atthe antish sae ses ssesne es coeeeecees P| PED Q2H0) Das secs
Girth at front of dorsal fin. .-.......-.-----s- 40.0 | 39.0 SOTO ease
Depth of caudal peduncle at origin of flukes 3.0 4.0 3.8 3.5
|
|
|
Remembering that these measurements were made by different ob-
servers on opposite sides of the continent, 1 think it will be conceded
that they agree as closely as would measurements of different individ-
uals of D. delphis made by different persons.
Scammon’s description (p. 99) might be applied to the drawings of
East-coast specinens, which 1 have called Nos. 1 and 2 (see p. 45), ex-
cept that the dark mark before the pectorals in the former is black in-
Stead of gray. It is represented as black, however, in M. TF ischer’s
figure of D. delphis var. soouerbianus.*
There is also among the drawings in the department of mammals a
pencil-sketch by Mr. Dall, in which the boundaries of the lines and
areas of color correspond almost exactly in position with drawings Nos.
1 and 2.
From the evidence now obtainable I am unable to distinguish between
* Cétacés de France, P1. 1v, fig. 2.
’ 94S
54 BULLETIN 35, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
D. delphis and D. Bairdti, and must, therefore, regard the latter as iden-
tical with the former.
Delphinus Moorei and D. Walkeri, Gray.
These two species are founded on two drawings and two skeletons
now in the Liverpool Public Museum. Both species are from a point in
the South Atlantic, in the vicinity of Tristan da Cunha. I examined
the types and original drawings, and verified from the manuseript the
ineasurements given by Gray.* The colors of D. Moorei in the original,
somewhat crude sketch, are, beginning from below, as follows: Light
pure slate-gray; darker greenish slate gray; black. The colors of D.
Walkeri are: Dirty white; light pure slate-gray; dark pure slate gray ;
black. The skulls are, as Gray has said, ‘*so similar that it is not easy
to point out any difference in words.” They appeared to me identical
with those of D. delphis. The skeletons I was unable to examine in
detail, but they are certainly not notably different from those of D. del-
phis.
The colors of these two individuals, as represented in the sketches,
are clearly far from identical. Nor are they exactly like those of any
figure of D. delphis which I have examined. Gray brings up an im-
portant issue when he says:
Considering that the coloring of the animals shows that they represent two species,
one is struck with the very small difference exhibited in the skull by species showing
such marked external differences, and can only conelude by thinking how hasty we
have been when we have referred skullsreceived from very distant parts of the world
all to Delphinus delphis, ete.t
This is quite the converse of Fischer’s opinion, namely :
Je pense que le dauphin vulgaire, qui semble habiter presque toutes les mers du
globe, présente @’innombrables races ou variétés.
But what are the factsin the case under consideration? On the one
hand we have two crude sketches of dolphins (not the dolphins them-
selves, it should be remembered), similar to each other and to D. delphis,
but not absolutely alike. On the other hand we have the two skuils of
the same individuals exactly resembling each other and D. delphis. Do
they represent distinct species or otherwise? Gray decides by the
differences of color in the sketches and affirms that they are distinct,
while he admits that the skulls are alike. Prof. Fischer, on the other
hand, would probably hold that, the skulls being alike, the differences in
color must be regarded partly as mistakes of the artist and partly as
real variations by which the different social families of D. delphis are
distinguished from one another.
There is one fact not taken into account by Gray which leads one to
believe that the latter opinion is correct, namely, that the proportions of
* Liitken (Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Skr., 6t Raek., 1889), states that these sketches
were not made by Walker, but by Capt. Andréa.
t Cat. Seals and Whales, p. 398.
>
r
DELPHINUS DELPHIS. BY
Coe
D. Moorei are identical with those of D. delphis. In the following tabie
the measurements of D. Mooret are placed by the side of those derived
from the No Man’s Land specimen of the same sex ( 2 ) already referred
to (p. 53):
D. delphis.
D. Moorei No Man’s
Measurements. (from Gray). | Land, Mass.
: U.S. Nat.
Mus. 9.
Ft. In. Ft. In
Mouth to tip of tail.._..... 6 33 6 3h
Lengthof mouth.-...--..--. 11 11
Length of snout .-....-..--- 53 54
Snon tito eye s2ee-= sec esate 13 123
Snout to snout-hole.......-. 13 133
Snout to pectoral fin......--. 184 18
Snout to back fin ........... 33 35
The agreement here is very close. The measurements of D. Walkeri,
which I did not see, are stated by Gray to be “nearly the same as in
D. Moorei.”,. We have, therefore, two dolphins agreeing with D. delphis
in their skulls and proportions, but represented as differently colored.
I believe that they should be looked upon as individuals of that species,
inaccurately represented, or at the most as varieties of that species.
Delphinus algeriensis Loche.*
Professor Fischer regards this species as possibly belonging to P.
marginatus, but in the coloration, which alone is described, it appears
to me to most resemble D. delphis. It is larger than any of the speci-
mens of which Professor Fischer has given the dimensions, but is
equaled by Scammon’s specimens of D. Bairdii (=D. delphis).
Delphinus albimanus Peale.t
There is in the National Museum a mounted skin, in a bad state of
preservation and without a trace of the original coloration, which is re-
corded as the type of this species. It does not closely resemble Peale’s
figure of the species. Upon cutting open the head, I found only a por-
tion of the mandible in position. This and the bones of the manus,
which I also exposed by cutting away the skin, agree with those of D.
delphis. We may, I think, fairly conclude that Peale’s species repre-
sents one of the varieties of D. delphis, like D. forsteri, which have
areas of white on the fins. The type was from
*Loche, Revue et. Mag. de Zoologie, 2d ser., x11, 1860, pp. 474, 475, pl. 22, fig. 1.
t Peale, U. S. Explor. Exped., Mamm. and Ornith., Ist ed., 1848, p.33; Cassin, 2d
ed., 1858, p. 29, pl. 6, fig. 1.
BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
56
oa egolt‘2 |aotles |e-sels'9 ok jocwt [ect] “77 GicGl8 WaLGTe.10'S, Seale chigrge eG: eRe (LOR feoslenage> parma = Cige hg eaee eeceer: op -*'| abe
eat he 9'9 |o‘ctle's loore’s [ra ott joztiese ese [t's lntz 9 |rece’s oe ose Leh | -* | puvteag mony |----- spehce’ “" YSUIL | P0307
|
fey § ‘3°ON
earn ae SSO) ictal icfeiceall cinerea iexehaig [OTe PHN |e see GiaLGiae |e es | GeGGa|| oo oes GiGi |G ORB LOG Gah es st ss (ie en OT DALE Ca Nae ee at OD es: WoyTB AL
oa “STIV
= | LON
aE Bess eeelo= | in yele 9° lO'tE lpsOLleceas WES | 22 syed psoacoes ONC |TGi an ORCHemNGh Oy Geer ia [eae vorseseeeees|--qacoorT ‘| |"qud [oodtearT aa
anim ein invetamne isis s | ae G‘ezil “9 LOMOF lnsere alias PS DUOC TPO SE Cy bh POST RCI ROTI Ca sseee Fees peeateel esi SOT -- Sen Op |RHOO RS 71) yo ~ i SLE 9
nhee | | |
aa aalter 0 parallel iene a GG 9°9 |0°PT [6°ST)""-""" 16 BS [LS | Otel “L OTS Na? ST ele e|Po se Pees esos wipuy p.ihasmod-q |\----- pas OD Saaal M8200
ap
j—)p | eae ee ed a - wwe lee ewe ee.
Se ar oz 0 all aon orreenacots |eatdeae | nee NOL VN Goieteile fara |i teed memes | On CIS ann Gale Osi) ork, 12 |8 °F (|§6 |6°E2:/9 Oe ODEraG op op | OOLFL
Seale sk | es Pere esl aeea Gh fol aimee (OLN ale Dee | (ele De w2\o9 |S°6 (6°ee|h 0%s| | wolworup |-"" OPER Siok mete OP =| 202rt
|e
bez 10 oem lineal ines ee te On PRON TEI PMO Rirctmna Siale, sabe cm | Cie 228% |L6 (6's \o'eP |---|" .90G "T00Z ,, |" wigwol-q |----- SUL ING | VOLFL
Ae blog Goes aeGeNGhCg Git) an |G) Olm| Gaeiie uO) |e 1°63 |L'P 91S 0-2 CS le AG (Mae elt || OSC) SS Sg ge ea lhe, eimeioo bee” (ALRLG IE
=; :
PESTOE blag ses] =" 8 'ceig’G IE"L |S "PL |9 31/908 |0'08 |0°9 |L 702 jo “2 Te ZaCuSien Gam MGRCCINOUC Po iene al pcenneme SI a TOUS RCo ea terete
UWP=is | | “SST
— Bess TAD GHOD Soria) Ck I Ie cot oo at [E213 FE IBGE = |L°S \€ ES |F'L 6G |S (G6 |G 8% iL OF foe OT Ten Ss BOOANG I Sias celta oie eres GeO Dine sa GUR OG
Paaee | *LOQIvV AL
Saae ae Bapslossal soul MeO Mata Hada tas WAC Kaye aes eI €% (°F 06 |9'9c \eeF |--" "| HIOR =—- MONT Jo SANG ENE TS) SOU yp cee
wy “up ‘UWID | UID “UID | “WD |UD |\UO | WD) wD | "wD |rwp) wo |) “Wp |UD) “Wp | "WO PUD wo
|
ee — —— S ——} i. S 2 : —
8 > n a
BCE gt ke eal el aie cael eee ee alee ee Be es | te ae e
= SVE PEs Sle asl WS) BISel alwea| ess 2) 8 Reg cing) = | © 5 a %
3 +o)! oe] oe! a9 = og) | BR Ss eee bal ep tenon) WEL Wey Pe Sissi tee 1) Is 93 Eaiee >
isn Peo Qieale es vet ret, > Fase eM) et Ree stock Mee ten Weenie) fed So eh S'S S
ie) pict |S i Sy a) 2 bugga aE bee ey HoOlnSs| — joes alee) Ep = ® = Us
4 +O |/3o15 ol/5 2] 6 As 26 orle! paS =) 5 1S = oS. ° i=] ro) &
° FSa Paes] 2S We DeDe|fetiep |ltitsal fasta Wel epee mel roiee| | at" Nene liso | a
5 SS elses S| a aes 2.¢ B|eF| = |Roe oer a |Se| so] 3/8 d : |
= B (fdlaslec! B Bia Be ete e. Leteter a er cily a: il Cae lee) aio —joodsT, | “woroal[o9 =
$ of |=siosios| 8 ai Tie GE Fall ills ie |= Mae ea a aa E
x S Is BIS elec] & Ra Fr | 2H 6 Pl oy SS mo |S =
r ist ON Syl eestl = ==|[2 Sa ieeierl| Ep Balo's rf
FElSp| ¢| SE —uoaa SET elliott wal o
Glos) 3] &] > | axssoy ai *\=04 yeaqjors| > | =e |e! —xvoq
Be aa S| << jesoduae J, qapeorg Aq ore14 Xa | © ae a ij = jo Uj prog
‘SIHd Tad SONIHd TAG
‘spuaumainsvau fO 2) QD],
57
DELPHINUS DELPHIS.
‘aod ISEOT IV ppv AsNU ‘tayorq yRoq Jo diqyc
‘tanosnyy Soup lg mols “HAYOIG OLB BSSOF OJ | YIPTA OJ J[VY-9U0 OOIM Tp
‘SLIJSOLITUOT “CT popequ’y g ‘uwoG°T INOQR ppR Asn ‘uayorq Yvoaq Jo diy, ¢
LINISLON “CT popoqe'y , ‘ao ISBOT IV ppv yASNU Suayo1q yvoq Jo dizz
‘[Nys-odf] oY} WoIF [VNPLAIPUL JuaIIIp V WoIF St OTGIpURAl SILT, 9 ‘AapIsS OVI WO 44909 []VAIS d1OUT 1O 9aIqy OG AVTT ,
ane | | | | | | | | | | | : “Sn
= ieee “il a |E § ae GL 8 EI |OLTS"ce |B "te lane capa Oe! lbs |9°S 0 OT ee fcHPa eos | SULT ME ees ge 2 | OS DE 2 CULM OR PAE
= | i | | | |
Sie ile BSP Ressistel ciel allie toa (ie\-iee,[ietaue/sy isieie alctail sell} sae eu ae Sfesleie) a} Moe) N i sielstal [sterecierelercll l= Clima) S18: tg 2 '82 2 OF | PY | late CLCAN © CLES C00) tthe ele hl ee ema ee qIs
| | | | | | | peltaint
“""l-"""16 9 16°8E8'S SL |8"EI 8 9TIc Se jose |---"\6%e 0k tS B'S Bee 'g6z |L'9F |--7*|"* SUK Souphg |-------------| OF praqueg | pL
| | | | | ! TT
| | | | | | | i Ua
Saal linia | saan laeaial PG CaLianpaey Caleb TGareea ice muccmecean iran CeguievGe AIG: mines eo IDV | ‘DI XO BO 2-2-7" 2577=" | SNL IVN'S “O | €280c
| | | |
| | | | ‘| | | ‘snqT
oral adie (PaCS mates (pC mea OV HLS TET tas: relreCemll cai ha) unas GHCHIEEGH an CHOMMIOMGGa | voresess sf qnq foodueaty | 6d,
| | | oe | | | |
Gru Gee SOL Ve see, LGR Vitee lee cee en ee eee STL CAS AUC RG
wee love ra Tmo jae OD) as OPENS
: ‘lop i9°8 | | OP [BLLOSTY JO ISBOH| ' ee see OD es DEK O8
| | “PLB I ULL
s---l----It-e lg-g lzcuz letp | op | -O8py Jo gseog |- Se OD ets OLAS
Seema, Hin Oe Geka (oR Op “UMOTYT Fake ores oukee ne
- neste 16'8 £°L2 |\C bP | op /A[NBADPT JO ISVOD) * ict op -~"| MzLoe
Apert ‘Ite |2°6 Plz |e pa NDNy, eens USN OU CL) is Giese ee a a OLUTAL SUV | VELOS
| | |. eer, a aeacteaceece ons iacee 0
j [eS |S'b 06 992 |8 "EF fee lov “AN op £802
| | |
ari i LO] "| "7 \e'Ges’s TL |GE |9‘9T/S ‘08 [00S (0°9 |E0z [oz ca GHC aeer SHC Gena! Okra ued ae oO 21 | aera eae op” |. £88e
spe | | | eae
pad b---l99 wale iC Ce SGD eG Shale Ol s22 7s bee hy ole 1 2°2 |6% j6°8 [8 G2 6Ty | Op A¥d MOK MON Sacea aie SONGS te | TLst
| | | |
srectecens|eceseleces lense] oee|-ceeleeeeer| ceeeleeeesla req] ain oibiois ll eteeeralllcteratenel ister nisters ‘low lbee lt-zz aR GE See [eenceecerem=-i-- En Slug || DELS
- a , 8°¢ (GL [8'8l 9 :ZTG'se jB'Fe |---|" "lon PS 9S GOL [a°Gs fr'Ly |" "| TSE) BMEYLE op DELS
(Gee taal eee all einerl|ceeille en claunalac rowed ey, eel ; | Ingats |lsoes|oeeoe ste 8 eal: soe coe eee ae !
oes P'9 |6°888°S |8'L [8 "EE jB‘9Tic‘se joes |---"|6"22 |o‘L wale |07OL |S |2:9F | asplig muy | gFg
‘SUIT
b-8 }
o 2s) || ela
= ‘ 5 . bg | al - he oa S-5
8 Collection. Type of— Locality. a |9¢| 9 | 8°] Sad
ee I ele || Bie
q Or test i Se dice ls S| Ee
iyi) ~ (>) | = er -i=
2 ae | eo PCE ess I Oretachi a
Ep z| 3 ef of @eet | SBP We cig Ne ies
S SS cea Ese eos leave |g | eed Oi
g Sara eeneo ie les els etic
a “ + = = ev) Powe
a 4 3 o | Pe || Siw walt seco
o mle | vA \4 4 | Oo
- ~ =a — —_~— re
é \ ; Cm. | Cm. | Cm. Cm | Cm. Cm.
a3065 Mus. d’ Hist. nat. | D. longirostris..| Malabar .-| Ad.| 49.5 | 23.7 | 8.4 3.8] 2.0 | 7.4
|\s | |
= Maison Breadth Temporal | ee | = A
4 of beak to—| between— fosse. os ¢ 2 2
I es ; am & | @o a |
Ce 5 Ge Z 5 = 4 2
. SH Kb 2 =p 2 B
ral ome S 2 oles Se aa a
- a od 2 | = 3 = Bg lo |e: S
oO aoe no a2 S a2 = eS | ro) = P
ele | ss |e) = ag = |e |aSige| 3 =
8 we) | Ho 3 o£. qa ao Pa | orm = >
£ | 2 |s5/ 88 | Ss a q "a |ealee/ 3) 3
Sia es f| Ae | es ES Salers Rela ae =
oO SH oa 4s, LD & lahis) SH OR ] wa oa iS) =)
5 oO pee! 4 5 =} — ° ay TS) 3
6 a } so “ = ee | a | A Shs o
i) ~ =) 3 SS S nD m= ~~ a ~~ ES > | eS) aor Q
a ea OS Bi | = # |soo 50 = eo | & =p = 3 g
PS) q nD S zS 2 an =| By =] a =) i) o
3 a a a A Rs o 2 co) Co) © o a 5
e) Slits |= |e S| Ser Ss UGS leit eis ells A
ee 2 ED ee | RPS
Cm. | Om. | Om. | Cm. | Cin. | Om. | Om. | Om. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Cm. Om.
a3065 | 30.2 | 4.7 | 381/388 | 14.7/12.9] 7.4] 61/437] 99|.....- 6.3| 4.6 ; oe
DELPHINUS CAPENSIS Gray.
Delphinus capensis, Gray, Spicilegia Zoologica, 1, 1828, p. 2.
For remarks upon this species, see p. 58.
60 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
DELPHINUS ROSEIVENTRIS Wagner.*
Delphinus roseiventris, Wagner, Schreber’s Siingeth., Pl. cccLx, fig. 1.
Dauphin a ventre rose, Jacquinot & Pucheran, Zool. Voyage Astrolabe et Zélée, ili,
1853, p. 39; Atlas, Pl. 22, fig. 2, Pl. 23, figs. 3-4.
I am led to retain this species in the genus Delphinus (restricted) on
account of the form of the palate and the style of coloration of the
exterior.
Pucheran and Jacquinot had three skulls before them when at work
upon their account of the species. Two of these skulls, Nos. @3026 and
a3027, are in the Paris Museum; the third (apparently) is No. 569 of
the museum of Cambridge University. There are figures of both skull
and exterior in the atlas of the voyage, and the former is also figured
in Messrs. Van Beneden and Gervais’ Ostéographie, Pl. XXXVI, figs. 6
and 6a.
The skulls are peculiar for their small size and the unevenness of the
surface of the different bones. The palate shows a condition in some
measure intermediate between that found in Prodelphinus and that char-
acteristic of Delphinus. The pterygoids are narrow and small, as in
Delphinus, and a distinctly marked channel extends on either side of
them nearly to the extremity of the beak. These channels are in no
wise so deep, however, as in D. delphis or D. longirostris
In proportions it differs from the other species of the genus. Its small
absolute size would alone serve to distinguish it from the remaining
species.
Table of measurements.
DELPHINUS ROSEIVENTRIS.
Breadth of | = 29a
beak— | 8 Ea
— a .
Ka | Sab
A by Big os
= B a2)
2 als pease
. us : _ = - b
a Collection. Type of— Locality. : a 4 lhe S SS
q a fs! is io = Oa ees
a| 2 Spey S| Sey | Oe
o a on ol Cia) S os =I Q
= a ° ov 3 | sey Dat,
iF) Ss o a of q a g QD got
CS) a is coe NW Cia = LoO%
= a = ‘ a n Lo} eA
g 2/22 } 2). eee
Se ai i) (c) oe) ~ 2 eS g
Oo RD aA H |< 4 | o
| Cm. | Om. | Om. | Om. | Cm. | Cm.
a3026 | Mus. d’ Hist. nat.{.| D. roseiventris |...... -- --:- eee eOidoos| (eka ol eel 3.9 129 Dil!
569 | Cambridge Mus.{ |....do ..-..-.-. TEOLLESIStUS::|||- == -|) ddn4 | 22-0a|) (Ona wall) es 5.3
“So far as I have been able to ascertain, the custom of citing Wagner as the author-
ity for the name of this species has arisen simply from the fact that the name occurs
on one of the plates which accompany the seventh part of Schreber’s Sdugethiere.
The species is not mentioned in the text, nor even in the list of plates.
t L’Astrolabe, 1840.
t Voyage de l’Astrolabe.
GENUS PRODELPHINUS. 61
Table of measurements—Continued.
. sl i so
4 Extremity | Breadth | Temporal © a A on
| of beak to—| between— fossie. QD | ¥ 2
SH | n HH ED a os}
a ee ; Sa i Ga é i = ta | A
A od | 0 ra: +l S Bh | Fare Ie Boule
m = ao - | 5 | . 2 =o ° Ss ro) = |
& eh Si lle Se | a © Pa rea nore nile vet sky :
4 S| 2 Sol el ao a bre | 2 | 8a | S&S | Number of
8 = aS | oS Goan aS | ee | og a
5 Se Ore ete || xo | o£. S a ore — S teeth
a iS Seseilici = | ero | =e, | wa | Oo | Es Seaia|
>) a | oS ial Sass, | a's oS; Oral vex red Sau |
=] S| SS) esi ll eee a 3 elto 2e 2
6 Sa) : ; : 4 4 5 a '
See tes (Pret Ge cc at) | Ese [Sth | Pa | retell Sierra hs. | |
= & | w Sah 1S = oh oN 2 of i 60 = ete | |
= a n Site a Ao a a | =] =| ma] o |
CH ve Ss is | 8 Be gcse ) v cD) ov 2) LY Ect
S) eA < A |; °o |m A A Ro iH ~ = A
== = SSS | = | = — —|-- — == <= ="
Om. | Om. | Cm. | Cm. | Cn. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Cm. | Om.
A fs Veale
a3026 | 21.6) 3.31} 27.9 |---.-- 2a LONOn ie Galera omleoes.67 Graal eceeree Bud |) on2 F ane
8—?
Ad ps 5 48—48?
569 | 20.3').--... QaAO UOT Op ele! liom ceraia|l 2niaretaicl| aiseraimie OBO eG ye Bileeaasellsoeeed||aacoce Ne AR
5. PRODELPHINUS Gervais.
Prodelphinus, Gervais, Ostéog. des Cétacés, 1880, p. 604.
This genus is closely allied to Delphinus and Tursiops. The chief
character which has been brought forward as separating it trom Del-
phinus is a negative one—the absence of deep lateral palatine grooves.
From Tursiops it is distinguished by its smaller and less numerous teeth
and (geuerally) more numerous vertebrae. These latter characters, it
nust be confessed, are not very trenchant, and it may be found neces-
sary at a later day to unite Prodelphinus with Tursiops.
The genus comprises a large number of nominal species, for the most
part founded upon single skulls. Nearly every large collection contains
a considerable number of skulls which may be assigned to this genus.
It is found, however, in many cases that when a large number of these
skulls is brought together they tend to form continuous series. The
differences between the extremes of these series are often striking and
perfectly definable, but in the middle they melt away and elude defi-
nition. From this fact and from the absence of material the task of
revising the species of this genus is a very difficult and disheartening
one. Professor Flower has, however, led the way (in the Characters
and Divisions and also in the List) to a better knowledge of the group,
and in his opinions I for the most part concur.
In the succeeding pages I shall consider about 23 species which
appear to me to belong to this genus, including some which have not
been touched upon by Professor Flower. I bring together the names
of all these species in the following table:
Prodelphinus caeruleo-albus (Meyen). | Prodelphinus dorides (Gray).
euphrosyne (Gray). tethyos (Gervais).
styx (Gray). marginatus (Duvernoy).
euphrosynoides (Gray). dubius (Cuvier).
62 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
Prodelphinus doris (Gray). Prodelphinus punctatus (Gray).
plagiodon (Cope), malayanus (Schlegel).
normalis (Gray). pseudodelphis (Wagner).
brevimanus (Wagner). longirostris (Gray).
freenatus (F. Cuvier). stenorhynchus (Gray).
frontalis (Dussumier),. microps (Gray).
attenuatus (Gray). alope (Gray).
capensis (Gray).
Several other species were assigned to this genus by Professor
Flower which seem to me to belong elsewhere. Of these C. obscura
Gray, C. similis Gray, and Electra thicolea Gray, seem to me to belong
to Lagenorhynchus ; Delphinus roseiventris, Hombron and Pucheran, I
prefer to leave in the genus to which it was originally assigned; D.
superciliosa, Lesson and Garnot, is not sufficiently well defined to admit
of an opinion.
PRODELPHINUS CQGZRULEO-ALBUS (Meyen).
Delphinus coruleo-albus, Meyen, Nova Acta Nat. Curios., XVI, pt. 2, 1833, pp. 609,
610, pl. 43, fig. 2; Wagner, Schreber’s Sinugeth., 7th Th., 1846, p. 336, pl. 363;
Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, 1846, p. 42. .
Lagenorhynchus caruleo-albus, Gray, Catalogue of Cetacea, 1st ed., 1850, pp. 100,
101; 2d ed., 1866, pp. 268, 269.
This species is based on a specimen obtained by Meyen on the east
coast of South America, in the vicinity of the Rio de la Plata, and de-
posited in the Zoological Museum of Berlin.
The skull, which I was enabled to examine in 1887 through the kind-
ness of Dr. Hilgendorf, resembles that of P. ewphrosyne, and also in
some respects that of P. doris. It is peculiar in having very small oval
temporal fosse, which are directed upwards strongly behind. The
intermaxillze are much arched in the middle of the rostrum, and the
ptery goids are strongly carinate. In the skeleton I counted 7 cervical
vertebree, 14 dorsal vertebrae, and 52 lumbars and caudals, but a few
more should probably be added to the number of the latter. The trans-
verse processes of the lumbar vertebre are slender and are directed
forwards.
The color of the species, as indicated in Meyen’s figure and descrip-
tion, is apparently quite different from that of any other known species.
(See Synopsis, p. 163.)
Why this species was included by Gray in the genus Lagenorhynchus
is not clear, since the form of the skull and beak are characteristic of
Predelphinus. Cassin’s reasons for associating with this species the
Delphinus albirostratus ot Peale are equally unsatisfactory.* I have
been unable to identify the latter species.
“Cassin, U. 8. Explor, Exped., Mammalogy and Ornithology, 2d ed., 1858, p. 31;
Atlas, pl. 6, fig. 2.
PRODELPHINUS EUPHROSYNE. 63
PRODELPHINUS EUPHROSYNE (Gray).
Delphinus euphrosyne, Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, 1846, p. 40, Pl. xxi.
Delphinus styx, Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, 1846, p. 39, Pl. xx,
Delphinus tethyos, Gervais, Bull. Soc. @Agric. Héranlt, xu, 1853, p. 150, pl. 1, figs.
1-4.
Delphinus marginatus, Pacheran, Revue et Mag. Zool., 2™° sér., vit, 1868, p. 545,
pl. 25.
Tursio dorcides, Gray, Cat. Seals and Whales, 1866, p. 400.
Clymene dorides, Gray, P. Z. S., 1866, p. 214.
Clymenia euphrosynoides, Gray, Synop. Whales and Dolph., 1368, p. 6. (No de-
scription. ) ;
The type of the species above named, together with three skulls in
the Paris Museum (Nos. @3022-a3024), and skull No. 179 from Jamaica,
in the collection of the Royal Victoria Hospital, Netley, agree well to-
gether, both as regards absolute size, relative proportions, and the dis-
position of parts. The length of the beak varies from 56.2 per cent. to
61.5 per cent. of the length of the entire skull. From the series which
groups itself around the type of P. doris they are distinguished by their
greater absolute size, relatively longer beak, broader intermaxille, and
larger temporal fossze, and by the possession of rather a larger number
of teeth. It must be confessed, however, that the recognition of these
and similar characters is rendered difficult, as already stated, on account
of the blending of differences at the extremes of the series. The type
P. euphrosyne in the Norwich Museum (where I examined it) is well fig-
ured in Gray’s Synopsis, pl. 22. It appears to be the skull of an adult
individual.
The type of D. styxv is lost and we have only Gray’s figure (Synopsis,
pl. 21) to work from. The obliging secretary of the Royal United Sery-
ice Institution informed me by letter that this skull, with others, had
‘long ago been disposed of.” I agree with Professor Flower that D.
stye is probably identical with P. euphrosyne. Indeed, Gray himself
yas inclined to take the same view (see the Catalogue, p. 250). There
is little, bowever, except its rather large size by which to distinguish it
from P. doris.
D. tethyos, Gervais, is founded on a single skull from Valreas, at the
mouth of the Orb. It is broken behind and appears as if diseased
along the frontal suture on the left side. The temporal foss are
rounded. The pterygo ds are not wide and have a sharp keel. Ger-
vais compared this species only with Delphinus delphis and Prodelphinus
dubius and frenatus. Whether he regarded the two latter species
(which he thought identical) as identical with or distinct from P. eu-
phrosyne we have no means of knowing. At all events we lack the au-
thority of his opinion for uniting P. tethyos with P. euphrosyne. On the
other hand there seems equally to be no reason for regarding these spe-
cies as distinct. If there are characters by which the skulls may be
64 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
really separated they have yet, as Professor Flower has already said,
to be detected.
In D. marginatus, Pucheran, we have for the first time in this genus
an instance in which both the external and osteological characters are
knowp. We are fortunate enough to have also complete data regard-
ing three individuals of a closely allied species, P. plagiodon, Cope, aud
are able to point out the distinctions between the two species very
satisfactorily (see p. 67). As regards the skull of P. marginatus, it so
very closely resembies that of P. euphrosyne, both in size, proportions,
and details of structure, that I am unable to find any ground for the
separation of the species. Professor Flower and Dr. Fischer both ad-
vance the same opinion, though with some hesitation.
Olymene dorides and Clymenia euphrosynoides, Gray.
The type-skulls of these two species are of the same absolute length
and exhibit the closest agreement in the relative proportions of parts.
No one who has examined them side by side, can, I think, doubt that
they represent the same species. ‘They are smaller than the type of 1’.
euphrosyne, but agree with that skull in proportions and details of
structure. O. euphrosynoides was not described by Gray, and the name
has therefore no validity except for those who hold that reference to a
figure answers in the place of a description.
Table of measurements.
PRODELPHINUS EUPHROSYNE.
\ + a
Breadthof = 2k
beak— | & Eae|
= ~~ H
{——-— |r ots vo
mB | a lS
| 5 hese PERS
g Bee eee
3g Collection. Type of— Locality. 41685 aS | a2
= ail a Seah Mi fad Oe 5s
a TT Is a eee fens | m | os =
=| =| =) ° mr o ~~
op Z| 2 a aA, SA) a,
< a a ee fess be ek Ps
3 4 i) z + |] Z fo
oO oa) |) (= 4 <{ q}A o
: ; Om. | Cm. | Om. ;|Cm} Cm. | Cm.
1473a@ | Brit. Mus....-.. Cr domdes ies |e acer (a= 4378 | 2or42 11.1 5.7) 8a 8.0
Sol Gal eee OO ce omer ce ORCUDLTOSY =) ane ete eee 43.8 | 25.6 | 10.9 |5.8| 2.5 8.1
| noides.
LITE) || Aeron IEW, Ilsseeoceansoase aAMAICAe- eee eee AE) 23 Gnle25j2e| Ovens 2s ans 7.8
Netley. i |
me Os) Norwich eMas)--|| eles een. ea mtelawaraie telateial= sce AT OM p2Ber ela en OOH eee a | eee eee
syne.
n.n. | Mus. d’Hist. | D. margina-| Dieppe -.--.--- S475) || 2952 17 16:31) 853 9. 2
nat. tus. |
@S02i | sede kee tiee ke D. tethyos...| Mouth of Orb.--.|.--.| 44.3 | 24.9 | 10.9 15.6) 3.1 8.9
3022 05 {dO sic sao se nec |seceweewien ooee|tecese ee eee eeneee : 41.9 | 24.4 | 10.7 |5.6| 2.3 7.6
Q30230 2 Sd Ome eoeten ee olemaaceseeeeiocs ? Mediterranean .|.--.| 43.7 | 25.7 | 10.4 [5.6] 2.7 8.6
GRUP Re eC eBooks een eenosenco robs ||Ssnecnosctcn icdoce|locce 46,20), 270. 5)) 116 | G26)" sa8 8.3
PRODELPHiNUS LATERALIS. 65
Table of mcasurements—Continued.
Vises : : ! co
| |‘ Extremity | Breadth | Temporal | | = |
| g of beak to—| between— fossx. g g = s
B 7 eS Cag xe) a S |
Ce « So or 2 °
4 S ey 5 eq ; D i | SL a ~
a Poe aege| O88 g | Nome | Bo | 28s
i | = ns aya ee ne | | <2 A Fe we 2 o .
® 3 ae | a2 & | ts Stews || te of =
¢ 2 i yee to ee ae = page | eee | TE) ie 3
Hq Slit = eee |S a) |) S pets oe. | om 5s | g
5 Bll Ca ieweh pes Eis a eo | Sh | Bo | a | +
a + See Are | Geo | ad & mir = oe | Pa
5 a, ates Sal peice Neat Sag see 3 Se |e 2
5 2 S ee | Ee = 5 © ° Po ES fa
eee oe | eel cs So PER ee des ee Mee ae | 8
E CGeive easel 24 |e |), on 2 ee to | |e 5
& Oe hiat (eee le Sey ts Sale eel ey een ee Say ec Ee
0 Be Peeled 3 oO |}H | A A HR IR RH |A [A A
Seg aE ae eames |" is EEE: x =|
Om. | Cm. | Cin. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cin. | Om. | Cm | Cm. | Cin. | Cm. |Cm.) pomae
| | | 2S
1478 | 21.8 | 4:8-| 30:5 | 32.2 | 18:7 15.2] 6,3 | 4:61] 37.1] 5.1| 21.6 6.6 |.25 |} a
| }
| | _|§ 50— 50
Baa |2on On| eos Oo SOs OW eaters! |smicisarel|2 ee olol= Bee aoe lesen wallets s sell hone eens a ae Es 2
| § 245— 45
A) 2 Ea at ins eee teh SOM (hes) Bis Basar Axon Pesci 6.6 |----| 2 245 45
| | | eacdipeeeds
ND. !---.--|---- -|------|------ PWS) |Eocione al Caw) Weal E eecec. jiebes |[eecoac!|aeor 1) 43 43
| | | ee | | | | | 5 248-248
n.n. | 25.4 4.6 | 34.5 | 35.8 | 20.3 | 15.3 6.3 5.1 | 40.9 | *5.6 |.--... (eth || eos A ea
| | ay 46— 45
a3021 | 21.6) 4.3 | 30.3 | 32.0) 19.8 | 15.3 | 7.1 5.8 | 36,2 | PAG) Ieee Toe “41— 42
j | | | =
| | | | | 44— 46
agor2 | 21.1 4.3 | 29.2 | 31.6|19.6/ 14.8) 56] 4.3| 35.6] 4.7 |.c.... ae ee ia
| | | | | | | | ¢ 246-248
oy | 2 2 4 7 | ie dm Gtk,
a3023 | 22.1 4.6 | 3L.1 rser 18.8 | 14.0 | 6.9 | 4.8 | 37.1 | DROS laesaas Tag oon 6443
| | | | |§ 142— 42
a3024 | 24.2 | 4.3 | 33.5 | 39. 3 | 21.0 | 15.0 {Gal 47878959)! 5: 17) eaee 6.9 pea 140 — 40
*Extreme.
PRODELPHINUS(?) LATERALIS Peale.
Delphinus lateralis, Peale, Mamm. U. 8. Expl. Exped., Ist ed., 1348, p. 35, PI.
vill, fig. 1.
Lagenorhynchus lateralis, Cassin, Mamm. U.§. Expl. Exped., 2d ed., 185%, p. 32,
Bis van, fig: 1:
Every student must be struck with the general resemblance of Peale’s
figure to the figure of P. marginatus given by Pucheran.* The color of
the two type-specimens seems to have been similar, but there are cer-
tain differences which make it impossible to refer P. lateralis to P. margt-
natus without question.
The general color of the upper surfaces of P. marginatus is represented
as black, while Peale’s animal is said to have been “light purplish-
gray.” It should be borne in mind, however, that the specimens of the
former species were drawn some time after they were captured, while it
is probable that Peale’s sketch was made immediately. The general
arrangement of the dark bands is much alike in both figures, and the
color of the fins is identical.
On the other hand, there is nothing corresponding to the spots so
plainly indicated in Peale’s sketch to be found in the drawing of P.
* Revue et Mag. de Zool., 2™° sér., vit, 1856, p. 545, pl. 25.
ei =p o6———»)
66 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
marginatus. The dorsal fin is situated much farther back in P. margi-
natus than in P. lateralis.
The locaiities from which the different specimens were derived are far
apart.
On account of the presence of these differences, real or apparent, and
of others which may be perceived by comparison of the figures, it is not -
possible to unite the species at the present time.
Why Cassin should have regarded Peale’s species as belonging to
the genus Lagenorhynchus is not clear. The shape of the beak is cer-
tainly not characteristic of that genus. Since Prodelphinus is not dis-
tinguishable from Delphinus by external characters in the present state
of knowledge, I have referred Peale’s species to this genus with a mark
of interrogation. Its close resemblance to P. marginatus externally
is my chief reason for placing it here.
PRODELPHINUS PLAGIODON Cope.
Delphinus plagiodon, Cope, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1866, p. 296,
Complete data regarding three individuals belonging unquestionably
to this species are at command. The skeletons, photographs of the
exterior, certain of the viscera, and measurements of these specimens
are in the collection of the National Museum. There is also a cast of
one individual]. One specimen, No. 22017, was captured off Hatteras,
North Carolina, by the naturalist of the United States Fish Commission
steamer Albatross. The second specimen, No. 15030, was purchased by
the Smithsonian Institution from the fishermen of Pensacola, Fla.,
through Messrs. Warren & Stearnsof thatplace. A description of this in-
dividual has been given by the writer in the Smithsonian Report for 1884
(pt. 2, pp. 317-324, Pls. I-v1). It is therein identified with P. plagiodon
(Cope), which species is in turn regarded as apparently identical with
P. doris (Gray). While, after further reflection and comparison of speci-
mens, I am more than ever convinced of the correctness of the identifi-
cation of the freshly-acquired specimens with P. plagiodon (Cope), on
the other hand I begin to doubt whether the latter species should be
regarded as identical with Gray’s Clymenia doris. If the relative pro-
portions of the species alone are considered, the two species do, indeed,
appear to be identical, but when the absolute size is regarded the matter
assumes a different aspect. The type-skull of P. plagiodon is from a
youngish individual, yet it is larger than the type of P. doris or any of
the skulls called doris or dubius in the collections of the British Museum,
the Royal College of Surgeons, and the Museum d’Histoire naturelle,
The Pensacola and Hatteras specimens, which are clearly not old (the
epiphyses of the vertebral centra are not anchylosed), are still larger
than the type of P. plagiodon. They exceed the typeof P. doris in length
by 2.55 inches and 2.3 inches, respectively. The Pensacola skull is more
than an inch longer than the largest of the twenty-nine skulls of the
PRODELPHINUS MALAYANUS. 67
doris series which I examined in the European collections. | Further-
more the teeth are considerably larger than in P. frenatus. They
measure 5°" in diameter at the base, and but 4 to 44 are included in
26™" (=1 Danishinch). In Dr. Liitken’s specimens the teeth measured
about 3™™ in diameter, and 5 to 54 were included in a Danish ineb.
I am inclined to believe that P. plagiodon must be regarded as a larger
species than P. doris, though the skulls of both are much alike in
appearance.
The skull of P. euphrosyne differs from that of P. plagiodon, chiefly
by its more numerous teeth and smaller temporal fosse. The skeleton
of the type of P. marginatus gives the following formula: C.7; D. 15;
be 21 Ca, 23 = 76.
The two specimens of P. plagiodon give the following formule: No.
15030 g Pensacola, Fla., C. 7; D. 14; L. 19; Ca. 29 = 69. No. 220172
Hatteras, N. C., ©. 7; D. 14; L. 19; Ca. 28 = 68.
Other differences in the skeleton are as follows:
In P. marginatus. In P. plagiodon.
(1) The third cervical vertebra is united tothe | (1) It is free.
second.
' (2) The neural spines cease at the 68th vertebra. | (2) At the 60th vertebra.
(3) The transverse processes cease at the 63d | (3) At the 54th vertebra.
vertebra.
(4) The foramina at the base of the transverse | (4) At the 49th vertebra.
process begin at the 59th or 60th vertebra. |
(5) The centra are flattened and oblong at the | (5) At the 61st vertebra.
68th vertebra.
(6) The anterior zygapophyses end at the 28th | (6) They endat the 29th vertebra (as distinct pro-
vertebra, and begin again at the 44th cesses) and begin again at 40th vertebra.
vertebra.
(7) The phalanges are as follows: I, 1; 1I,8(+);| (7) As follows: I, 2; II, 9; III, 7; IV, 3; V, 1.
IM, 6; IV, 2; V,0.
P. plagiodon is readily distiiguishable from P. marginatus (= P.
euphrosyne) externally by its spotted skin.
1. PRODELPHINUS MALAYANUS (Lesson).
Delphinus malayanus, Lesson, Voyage de la Coquille, Zool., 1, pt. i, 1826, p. 184;
atlas, pl. 9, fig. 5; Schlegel, Abhandl. Gebiete Zool., Hft. 1, 1841, p. 20, Pl.1 and
My hess ale LY, fig. 3.
? Delphinus brevimanus, Wagner, Schreber’s Siiugeth., 1846, pl. 361, fig. 2.
? Dauphin a petites pectorales, Jacquinot & Pucheran, Voyage de la Astrolabe &
Zélée, Mamm. & Ois., 1853, p. 38; atlas, pl. 21, fig. 2; pl. 23, figs. 7 and 8.
2, PRODELPHINUS ATTENUATUS (Gray).
Sleno attenuatus, Gray, Zool. Ere. & Terr., 1846, p. 44, Pl. XX vit.
Delphinus pseudodelphis, Wiegmann in Schreber’s Siiugeth., pl. 358; Wagner in
do., 1846, p. 332; Schlegel, Abhandl. Gebiete Zool., Hft., 1, 1841, p. 22.
Steno capensis, Gray, Proc. Zool. Soc., London, 1865, p. 522.
Clymene punctata, Gray, Proce. Zool. Soc., London, 1865, p. 738; Cat. Seals and
Whales, 1866, p. 398, fig. 101.
68 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
3. PRODELPHINUS FRCNATUS (F. Cuvier).
Delphinus frenatus, F. Cuv., Mamm. de la Ménag,, liv. 58, liv. 59; Hist. nat. des
Cétacés, 1836, p. 155, pl. 10, fig. 1.
Delphinus frontalis, Dussumier, in Cuy. Régne Animal, 1, p.288. (Fide Wagner.)
Delphinus doris, Gray, Zool, Ere. & Terr., 1846, p. 39, Pl. xx.
? Delphinus dubius, G. Cav., Ann. du Muséum, x1x, 1812, p, 14.
Delphinus clymene, Gray, Cat. Seals and Whales, 1866, p. 249.
Clymenia normalis, Gray, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1866, p. 214.
The relationships of these three species (if such they be) are so cluse
that I have thought best to consider them conjointly. Professor Flower
has said (List, p. 30) that—
Though single well-marked specimens of Gray’s Clymenia doris and Steno attenuatus
may be so unlike as to justify their being placed in distinct species, yet when a large
series, such as those of the British Museum and College of Surgeons combined, are
compared together, the two extremes pass so insensibly into each other that it is
difficult to avoid the suspicion that the differences depend upon age, or sex, or on
individual variation. Unfortunately these forms are known at present only by skulls.
When the remaining parts of their organization can be correlated with them proba-
bly other specific distinctions will be demonstrated.
That it is unsound to combine all these nominal species at present
appears from the fact that there are indications that the exterior of the
individuals from which some three or four of the skulls were derived dif-
ered mnch in appearance.
In the atlas of the Voyage of the Coquille (pl. 9, fig. 5) is figured the
exterior of a dolphin, taken between Java and Borneo, and in the
text styled D. malayanus. With this species Schlegel, in the Abhand-
lungen, identifies a skull from Celebes, two skulls from Java, and a
young individual, somewhat over one and one-half feet long, from
Borneo. This individual appears to have been a suckling, as is indi-
cated both by its size and by the fact that “it still had some hairs
on the sides of the snout,” and that the teeth were “still only incom-
pletely broken through the gums.” ‘The color is bluish-black gray,
the under parts somewhat clearer.” The skull from Celebes, which I
examined, closely resembles the type of Gray’s C. attenvatus, but is ab-
solutely larger, with relatively longer beak and shorter tooth-row. The
number of teeth is, however, nearly the same.
Of the individual which served for the type of D. malayanus of the
Coquille no parts appear to have been brought home. The color is de-
scribed as “ uniformément cendrée.”* It was 5 feet 11 inches (Irench)
long.
It is, of course, impossible to determine whether Schlegel’s identifica-
tion of his specimens with D. malayanus was a correct one, but the
young individual was at all events not unlike that species in color.
In the atlas of the Voyage of the Astrolabe and Zélée (pl. 21, fig. 2;
pl. 23, figs. 7 and 8) are figured the skull and exterior of another dark
*All the ‘figures on plate 9 of the atlas of the Coquille are colored bluish-green,
which is evidently not intended as the natural color.
PRODELPHINUS FRGNATUS. 69
gray species, called Dauphin a petites pectorales. Gray (Catalogue, page
236) states that it was from Banda, Singapore, but on what authority
1 have been unable to determine. In the figure of the exterior the
pectoral fins are entirely too small. The measurements in the text
agree well with those given by Lesson for D. malayanus. Further-
more, the skull figured on plate 25, figs. 7 and 8, very closely resem-
bles the skull which Schlegel identified with D. malayanus. It is a
little smaller and has rather smaller temporal fosse, but otherwise
agrees with Schlegel’s skull in details of structure.
From sich evidence as presents itself it seems to me probable that
Schlegel was correct in his identification, and that D. malayanus Les-
son and D. brevimanus Wagner are identical.
That this species is distinct from P. attenuatus, though closely related,
is apparently indicated by the differences in the proportions derived
from the measurements given on page 72.
In 1865 Gray, in the Catalogue, page 398, described a species under
the name of Clymene punctata from a specimen in the Public Museum,
Liverpool. Through the kindness of Mr. Moore, I examined the orig-
inal material upon which this species was based. My time was so
limited, however, that I could only examine and measure the skull
‘and note the colors in the original sketch of the exterior.
The skull very closely resembles P. franatus both in size and pro-
portions, and I think there can be little doubt that it is identical with
the latter specifically. The exterior is as Gray figured it (Catalogue,
page 398, fig. 101). The upper parts (see diagnosis, p. 166) are black, the
under surface, the lower jaw, pectoral fin, and the band over the tail
are very dark slate-gray. There are numerous white spots on the
sides. The measurements and locality are correctly quoted by Gray
from the original.
The exterior in this species is plainly different from that of P. malay-
anus, while, as already stated, the skull is precisely like P. frenatus.
The skull of P. atfenuatus closely resembles two others, namely, one
called D. pseudodelphis Wiegmann, in the Leyden Museum, and the type
Steno capensis Gray. I examined in the Leyden Museum a skull which
in all probability is that referred to by Schlegel in the Abhandlungen
as D. pseudodelphis. 1t closely resembles Gray’s S. attenuata, and if
Schlegel’s identification is correct, D. pseudodelphis would, therefore,
seem to be identical with Gray’s species. If the identification can be
proven correct, pseudode/phis would supplant attenuata as the name of
the species under consideration.
The type-skull of Steno capensis, Gray, scarcely differs at all from S.
attenuata except in size. It is about an inch longer than the type-skull
of the latter species. Professor Flower holds that the two species are
“not distinguishable” (Char. and Div., p. 498), and there is every reason
to regard this opinion as the correct one.
70 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
The evidence at command seems, therefore, to warrant the union of
the three nominal species D. pseudodelphis, Wieg., S. attenuata, and SW.
capensis into one.
Prodelphinus frenatus (F. Cuv.).
The two skulls in the Paris Museum labeled P. franatus, and pre-
sumably the types of that species, are precisely like the type-skull of
P. doris (Gray). The exterior of P. franatus is different from that of
P. punctata (=P. attenuata). Itlacks the spots of the latter species, and
the pectoral fins are black, like the back, rather than light-colored, like
the belly.
I was formerly inclined to regard Delphinus plagiodon as probably
synonymous with P. doris (=P. frenatus). It is somewhat different in
color, however, and the greater size of the skulls now at command ap-
pears to indicate that it is a somewhat larger species than P. frenatus.
Supplementary remarks.
Dr. Liitken, in his recently-published contribution to the history of
Prodelphinus and other genera, to which reference has already been
made, gives much new information in regard to this very perplexing
group of species.* THe presents measurements and other data regard-
ing four skeletons and three skulls of P. doris (=P. frenatus), and the
same regarding two skeletons which he Sane with P. attenuatus.
These two species have the following vertebral formule: P. doris, C.
7; D. 14; L. 16-18; Ca. 31-33=70. P. attenuatus, C. 7; D. 15; L.
; Ca, 36-38 =79-81.
One individual of P. doris is represented in a sketch by Captain
Andréa as being dark on the back, white on the belly, and covered
with very numerous spots. Another individual is represented as dark
ereenish-gray on the back, light gray on the belly, and with but few
spots or streaks, which are confined to the region in front of the pec-
toral fin. There is a well-marked band between the pectoral fin and
the forehead. (A copy of Dr. Liitken’s figures is Soe in the plates.
These figures are given only to show the color-marking; the outlines
are diagrammatic.) P. attenuatus is represented as dark on the back
and ashy-gray below.
Except as regards their different vertebral formule and the corre-
lated disposition of the processes and foramina of the vertebra, the
specimens identified by Dr. Liitken as P, attenuatus might be placed
under P. frenatus. Iam not aware, however, that any such consider-
able variations in the number of vertebra as are here pointed out have
been recorded as occurring among individuals of a single species.
—
* Liitken, K. Dancke Vidensk. Suis Skrifter, ote, Raekke, v, 1839.
PRODELPHINUS FRC@NATUS. Gl
Nevertheless, since the skulls and external proportions of the speci-
mens identified by Dr. Liitken as P. doris, attenwatus, and alope are
almost identical, the question naturally arises whether the difference
in number of vertebrie may not possibly be due to individual variation.
It would be very interesting in this connection to know the vertebral
formula of Gray’s P. punctatus, the skull of which seems to me identical
with the type-skull of P. attenuatus, but whose style of marking resem-
bles Dr. Liitken’s P. doris, No. 4. Since Dr. Liitken states that the
types of Gray’s D. mooreit and D. walkeri (=D. delphis), which are la-
beled “ Walker’s No. 1” and “ Walker’s No. 2,” were really obtained by
Captain Andréa, it occurs to me that the type of D. punctatus, which
is labeled “ Walker’s No. 3,” may also have been obtained by Captain
Andréa. It is from a point near the Cape Verde Islands, only a few
miles distant from the place in which Dr. Liitken’s P. doris, No. 2, was
derived, and was probably caught in the same year.
The specimen which Dr. Liitken places under “P. obscurus (Gray)”*
certainiy does not belong to that species, which is, I believe, a Lagen-
orhynchus. In color this specimen seems to me intermediate between
the two specimens figured on page 34.+_ In external proportions it agrees
with P. doris No. 4,¢ and in skeletal proportions with this and other
Specimens on pages 32-33.
In conclusion, it may be said that it is necessary for the present to
regard P. attenuatus as a distinct species, on account of its different
vertebral formula.
The difference in color between P. frenatus and Dr. Liitken’s speci-
men of P. doris may be regarded as due to difference in age. |Si6.< \P wala '6e | ee Su ere tl Lae eat weal EE See SA CdS OIA [ne
| “SOLON
“"10 9 | ‘Te|6 9 |E PEL F 09 “** \O'91/S°0E [S62 |e F 9 Wc/8 9 Golly 981 |P Sc8 98 | PV) age ee ats an soocct} “[.dsoH “OLA “a0 | LéL
| |
"1° [€ OGG “2 |0'SEi0'S ILD |6°L1\P 91/0 0E \c'6c |€ FP TEL 9 Vand ee 66 |L'ecle Tp |-7> "| edo pooy odey |-sysuadwa “gy |------- Sos ODres sare
| *9n)
“77718 °S 16 'G1/F “2 (6 8/0 S 9 FRED! ical |e G96 |8°P |e 6I\L'9 Oa 8S (L8 6 "Zc e'8e SEE or Pin ahi 1 SOU UOT OY A Sie ya EU fear WOU
| t i
SOITVONGLLV SANIHd THQ0uUd
STATES NATIONAL
UNITED
36,
“(Joo} Jo aoquuny
BULLETIN
| 7s 2 , ape
| i} | | | | | 2
| | | | | *89Q9T99
ei sei ese alls 3 Buin lapse 0°08 jo loecjoz |Ls rr 26 lu-ozlc ‘ap |---"| pue wae jog |------- voor) Beg -sfeg “sn | g
|
| | | | | “SRUDUL
eee | ae ae Ee et caetl abate eur ane pes 1 Seng teas a le ; cabloureeloae lt patie orleans pe ky eee
} es GRhEBeh = Gis. “a Ss St 3°64 |S € |F Geb 9 SiaiGak isn PGCE “IP VAO[BI JO SIS | -aatq “| FVU ast. p'SnyT | VEcog
|
MID UID | wp) wp) "Wp | wp \UID| wp) wp | rw |rUnD UID) “UID |"mID! “WO | “UID |-AUD| wo |
|
= = = } —< | oe == ———— |= =|
| cll es [= i | ‘onl loel b mM
Retire belicta ggeeee| ote eiecel eal) secre OGL, Etec ahss, cel eel yes eae Ee oe Q
| 3S] Ble] os = E| ©. Stl me | Slee SaS7) S| = Shiv elo ae| S
eee AR) Og Pea |S ee Ra ret eoal tate Ca (aN Be eS tal oes) a Sloe |S =
i amb | UO ed S eitealne me | oe. Ae perl at OS baal tet Do = =) =)
Co th es a = | : Aes, oo SUNS ale) Sates Meera bee pest 9 Ss =e) o sy 53
ea ell ei) Se! pale val see Su eee Lala iGe hos =n ° ° 5 ~» =
SiG: fel wale =e Seal o jee Ss See SS ee Fh Og. | oa o
= el ea Rite RAI Ville fi b= a faa atest Pato te = 21> omy > co o © B
2a\=Sle| & re Pt) s6 (ag) S | S85 jog| © | oR} Ss]. |° =
EE saiH8) = rs [wee Bae He ar Bae ie al ee | = “AqLoo'T —yjo od & Dios (Qo, 2) 22 enle Seal a
| {pe my | GS = o | Be lA > =r eto SS i = @
° | [—} —) & a) | 2@ i=) “ee |S 2) 5 5
ae| a n| o c s Sols 2 |O © S
OVS Si) pile = echt] Co elles =F eee || os
wi! ol 6 g | See ene As Beco ues
POE: ~ |—ueeag| 2 Sea) oe
ak 3 E ‘a980] at] +9} yreq Jo 2 5 4 “| —yvoq
= 3 | \ Xx S. te | He)
EW 5) & [e.1od ato T, pear AQIMMOLIN OT | = ai a JOT pvolg ‘
C2
‘SONVAV IVI SONIHdDIECOUd
‘spuaumainspau JO a)QVT
(3)
FRGNATUS.
PRODELPHINUS
‘diz on] 9v
oa)
se—1e §
v
5
aa all.
eh —cP ; en
Q
Sikes ss
|
|
2
5
8 =OG)
— OP. ;
an
a Sat
calm
cti—tTi S
GG 68
€& —CE ;
SGimeSee
SE 86S
OF ST,
Gh —6P.
Giaeké
Ti LES 3
OSarhbee i
98595
VARS oun
b8—8e
19
167
|
\6°9
gee
|G 5)
6 FE)
BEE
6°86
Ts
0's 0'se0'¢
oS
{188 °S
€°¢
9
9
0
8
I
Y
ty
9
Ag
7
Peel Efe} 8S
0°€L 0°9T
if |
Sol F Cl
“GT
IT 61g
za18 9
\€ 91|
POSVMUUp JVTAMOULOS SI Yvdq OTL ¢
6 66
0 Te
|
01S
G66
0'P
8's
1L°§
\0'F
8°€
ey
|
8 ‘61
ost
|
|
9 81
L°&s
tél
“qs0qwVaay ~
G
=
oo
=
oo
_
o
~
oo
6°8
6
ses opi:
ewww we op:-,
“-""-opraA adeg
> 1B90Q UVIpuy
‘eu9(9H
“4S 9p sodvarg
-- 0B90Q UeIpuy
“rors OUR
‘auvmIa ly, AY Mom .
S1)M7UWO.Nf J |°- > OW
|
Sop | op---
"$}
| CUTE SHAE Os Re
op->
(Op)
op.---
op >>
OD Same
‘opts:
op:**:
op:*--
OPnts
op:7*
“Jem 4st. p “Suyy
*£OTION 10
[.dsoy “ora ‘S037
s[oreeeeeeees oper:
"8n} “SIV
-ppund ‘g | "qug joodieary
se eeeeeeeees[eeeereeeees pete
+, SUIT
‘quq joodioavy
we eee eee eee
“* suop go SUIT INE
COED
£06?
FE0EY
9c0EY
TE0E?
OFOE”
LG0EY
GENE?
8E0E”
| 6£0E”
0&0ED
| 6606”
9606”
961
‘SOLVNWUA SONIHdDTACOUd
BULLET.N 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
74
=i | ee
arrears e “)-"-ig-g (yp levetig gris ez [ez [8b ae GGAGEG* AGEs elBAUa\EIBRYo==7|eaetaee ercsainc
|
le— ce | |
seticat Poca tetee 9 0c &°9 |G ‘SEPP 0°L G'E1S ‘91/6 86 |S 0E |8°E aes *h Ge |I'S 6G Prkolovarel\a ahl| snes ea oe
|
O Gia oS: | | ’
98 —18 : “"""1¢ "9 |S “6I/F Ss ILeelp"p lo°9 (gerlg‘sile-ze |¢-93 ice jo ‘ozle'z SEGHIONY TSSe Sh eI Sical ONS elena lane SOLRE ee: Fay
66 —OP | : | laa Se labtewiaaie bracts Breas
i, —O0F } ey yeetsy tewttel ly Ee 19'S (|G°CLPST\c 66 |c'8c 8 °F lachelaed 6G |8'€ 68 tealep ts emo
66 —8&é | | | | ree Vira A ae 3 ea | A te | tr ee en Ae aS a Sac
GaSe “" 16'S 1661/9 9 ese EG) OSG |Dei Li cs mane 0'9T (8 °F 661/09 6G BE V1 Ste wi tehacctes ake A Gelli ee llr a ee
98 —% | baad | : a iar Rae
Or —2 } Ae Wa SOYA) | Q'SEF FP lO'L 6 11/2 'S1/0 0€ jL°8 |6 F /€ 0c/E 9 ten Hel siteletes © MONO? ee er = =
OF —0F | Pie ee Se Ae eer Fontes a
OF Sat 5 WL S95 0a seal RSIGes: €°9 § |€ clil*SL8 6é |+ ‘8g «(8 6 "0c/0°L 6G |8°S |6°8 LPG 8 "OF
98—LE 2 | | | | | | fi] aD ee ne sence
ge —1E y 7 \E°9) |P ST8"s GTS 6S OS WEE alllistsia ll 2 ae {°96 9° |9 "6T/E 9 c'% 8 y i§ 8 9°GZE RE | PV
-=885 AS ee | | | PM cell coal ete llepee aae, <3 or Ma
See gf Ale ae TA ag he ts eta a eS Pacanca| se les 06 a‘tele ze
Sane: | ; ‘ Sat |e cratawemreinS cierutoteels
See fepapeey Re HOR! -tamrutwa armel wee lees Mea iaetnr he oy |ps |L-ert'se
=8& | | ee te leew llnernreeaareicce cseteete
Ss ; reid amok lee hae POSE ECO) es) meh igO Please mall cowie ir a liesporesd| rakgee Te S515 pencl| (Diep 9°8 € PGP OP
Ses | ae alte | femme ae
=e eel mend | tee isi Sect liere we ote 8°9 Scola GTiE Sac SaIE aa shoe (eel Plas Se oe “le 18:8 |9"9SiL SP
wD wp wma) wg) “wD MD WO Up) “WA | wD | wO Wg) “wo |UD) ‘wD | “wD \"wO) WO
P — |——|- | |
| / } ~ i te ba ical BK wm
E =| | mlos | & | ma Lele) 6 | 2a) 1a] 858) BF] F/e| Ble
= Pie eh eae) Wee Lier Bice lt Seip see | | egies ge |e
=) =| 6] ele 55 oa ee | Be eS 6. | a gi et Ne. Sp SI foe ee Mes
2 hts oar) lot bar) || =o 52 = i) | Kp aS = Q = it tee og og
= Beech een | oe og Bie eS ea eel See, ene tes Ole Bees A ale eee | oe
= CAlasias| & a oa |) jens Site, |) Sess Wore Bete} | rs z
rst eeiasiaB! ps | g | Pe (S| a] See |ok Pe ae “AqTVOO'T
Pasa) = | Bo bet Ned hem Ae entaty lier: fab 8
ZS Fe ee Seer es | i 3 S| 25 jes| &| “oe |g =
° ° a — o is - =6| 5 ct" MWe E =
SA al) VE = 4 MWh Sy Eat a
5 Z Zo mE <<
acy 5 5 7 . — =< ao ‘a “|
TS ail() cals lac ey 5 =
pS =i al! | -aassoy aie yeoq Jo} = i Ian ec"
= 5 ewes q Aran fp ape
Ey 5 5 [eaodway, ‘Wyprorg AYLOMIAAN EB we | B| jo Wjprerg | |
. ‘panajmojo—SALVYNWUaA SONIHdTUGOUd
‘panuiyu0pn—spuamaimspaw JO 9) QVL,
auawhyo@ |*7 777 SRFL “IME | POSE
BECO GOOG WSS GS.) a diea late Hits
Eile Case simiene|*meceesece® QD *=="! OFOE
geerg sch creeps eomprarn Sele
Sar cl eran ae a 7
isa baa © | me op'***| £808
Sard srrer-[oo7* Bang [10D “wW | GE0E
See aaa SUIT ptozxQ | LOOT
Seater [pacar CO} ttl I
Se eae Seo sansa -- op-7*| wgLg
SOC TCG C oS BSCR: (ayaa yee
PG ae alge “Sny_ esprqmey | 791¢
ps
2
2
=)
os
®
B
—yjo od Sq, “MOTOITIOD 5,
fas}
PRODELPHINUS LONGIROSTRIS. 15
PRODELPHINUS LONGIROSTRIS (Gray).
Delphinus longirostris, Gray, Spic. Zool., 1823, p. 1.
Delphinus microps, Gray, Zool. Ere. & 'Terr., 1846, p. 42, pl. 25.
Delphinus alope, Gray, Cat. Cet. Brit. Mus., 1850, p. 118.
Delphinus stenorhynchus, Gray, Cat. Seals and Whales, 1866, p. 396.
This species is distinguishable from those of the same genus, which
we have already considered, by the small size of the cranium as com-
pared with the beak. In the Characters and Divisions, Professor Flower
places the four names given in the foregoing synonymy in one of his
sections of Clymenia. In the List he unites stenorhynchus with longi-
rostris, and holds alope and microps as distinct species. Of the latter,
however, he remarks that it is “probably the same as the next (P.
longirostris).”
To the union of stenorhynchus and longirostris I subscribe with little
hesitation. Furthermore, the specific identity of stenorhynchus and
microps does not appear to me very doubtful. The type of microps is,
however, somewhat smaller than the type of stenorhynchus, though both
skulls seem to be of the same age. The intermaxille are a little nar-
iowed in front of the “triangle” in the former species but not in the
latter. The beak is relatively longest and narrowest in stenorhynchus.
On the other hand, in the remaining proportions the two skulls are alike,
and the teeth are equally numerous and similar in form; the pterygoid
bones are alike in form, having flat sides and a very sharp keel. The
difference in the proportional width of the intermaxille at the middle
of the beak is due to the partial absorption of these bones in P. steno-
rhynchus.
The coronoid process of the mandible is strongly developed in both
skulls. The roots of the teeth in P. stenorhynchus are flattened, a little
thickened, and imperforate.
If Delphinus alope is to be kept separate it must be because of its rela-
tively broader beak and keeled mandibular symphysis. There is, how-
ever, in the collection of the National Museum, a skull, No. 21168, which
is intermediate in form between alope and longirostris, and binds these
two species together. The beak is broader than in longirostris or
microps but narrower than in alope, and the symphysis mandibuli is more
strongly keeled than in the two former species, but less than in alope.
The skull is nearly as large as that of stenorhynchus (see table of meas-
urements, page 76).
The specimens described by Dr. Liitken in his recent work,* under
the name of “Prodelphinus alope,” are certainly not the Delphinus alope
of Gray (=P. longirostris Gray). On the other hand, the skeleton de-
scribed as “P. longirostris (Schl.) ” does, I believe, belong to the species
under consideration.
——
* Liitken, K. Danske Vidensk. Selsk., Skr., 6th Rackke, v, pt. 1, 1889, pp. 43-47.
76 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
The description given by Dr, Liitken * applies almost equally well to
a skeleton recently collected by the naturalists of the U.S. Fish Com-
mission Steamer Albatross, in the Pacific Ocean, between the Galapagos
Islands and Panama. The vertebral formula in each is as follows:
Dr: dhttken/sispeciment a -- ope ene eee eee Cids D143, Loli as34——72
Uc. Nat. Mars: INose3o0 2525.3. 2552) selene poet C.7; D.14; L.18; Ca.34=75
The relations of the processes and foramina of the vertebrz are as
follows:
Dr. Liitken’s U.S. Nat. Mus.,
specimen. No. 23302.
First foramen perforans on vertebra number...----. 48-49 48-49
Last distinct transverse process on vertebra number. dD 56
Last neural spine on vertebra number..---...-..-...- 61 62
Vertebre without zygopophyses ....--...-..--.---- 11(=31-41) 10(=32-41)
The length of the pectoral fin in the specimen in the National Museum
is 256™". The formula of the phalanges is as follows: I, 2; II, 9; III,
Ts Wego VO.
The entire skin of this individual was not preserved, but the fins and
a piece of skin from the side of the body were received with the skele-
ton. From these it appears that the dolphin was dark slate-gray above
and white below. The darker color, which extends on to the fins, is
everywhere mottled with very small blotches of a lighter gray. The
white parts appear to have been covered with small streaks and stellate
blotches of gray. Measurements of the skull will be found in the fol-
lowing table.
Table of measurements.
PRODELPHINUS LONGIROSTRIS.
* Op. cit., pp. 47, 48.
| Breadth |S |25
ot beak— | “] ea
: | es [ake eile
S | | 2 | seen lene |
f= ‘ : | 3 | ag] 0 |o ea
g Collection. Type of— Locality. | 95, Pledge ol SEa@. | See co eS reas
: ls) 2 | 2 lee le) eS eee
=I | Pig S| Soy) oe seep, eee ey
Ey Sl) elie ce Dy reese en eS
g S\/ 2 | & | Shi a |ses |See|
eS ebl| fag! ep) lige ea Bee ae |
= K H 3 5 ea ase = z o£]
o | m | A 4 be 4) oi
= | =I 7 ra| —y = — | =) (
| | Cm. | Om. '\Cm.; Cm. | Cm:
3490 | Brit. Mus....--. Di WWGCRODS 6 aod \ cack eae eee Sse 39.4 655 | 4.3) 2.0 | 6.1 |
NECA Sei ee oe Soeaome DEStenoriyMCRus loca se ske nee sea tee | 45. lp Cader asl) 2a One (OnOn
BAT AB Ee Oesecs ce eee hic sete ce cee oases Seem Seeaeere See sa|ost AiO I 48d jHOstel tere Osee
D0). | Norwich MUS: oo ems ae mene ste seer leat on cee Old, 44.2 YASS poe Reeeal nace =e
ab67,| CanbridaeMus: | 22 sch 2eaas-cecee: | f2-aa6 aeeee ee eee ~ ac) 4450 8.4 | 4-6) -2: 2) | 16.4
3039'), ReColla Surge sade. ee ce cae Soe ts scree eee nl rel Ere 42,2 | | %614.5] 21) 64
12) Mus. Pays-Bas..| D.longirostris...| Cape Good Hope .--., 42.0 | tis 4n6) SAE Fo.ay)
V4e| oA dans ener nec | sae een CN (ee EES 517 /842.05) 7.9 | 4.6) 2.3] 6.8 |
21684} WS. Nat. Marsi73) -ho2 Jeb o.. Seeenees et AP ea oat aa |Ad.| 43.6 | 862 )°52|" 223 Ges
302 «|i maser e a 2a|bec ake ea aacceeaeise Near Panama..-].-..| 39.4 | 2 8.05; 4.5) 2.05] 6.0
| |
=~]
=~)
GENUS TURSIO.
Table of measurements— Cautinued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| m Extremity | Breadth Temporal | 3 a z 4
5 of beak to—| between— fosse. | mn 5 s =
D | {23 2 =) |
+) 224 Sar fel - =) eae eee |
7 nD n ® I aa cee A A
lelmeseaiee S| sees (22: 23 2 |e |48) 26! & =
=| ° ay Sy | Sa see ore 2 urs s2 | on fal ~
=) ) of ag 5 eee | = Alé6s Se a £
A Soa a sn = HL | (iy a 1S | H~ | BS 5 :
o oH SS) Sea) eyes | oc oH OF | wy 2A 7 =
Sea ee eis, | a, 3 [ack can! : Oo es ls os
on | eee MeO SE| a | Beh ee 1s pc Sa ee = aS| oe 2
= J Olay = lisse 5 eS || Te & c aS S| =
= ipa Sieh | S| fee |, Geel pagel ety lee elma © hres 5 I
a v 3 a | A x pegee oe ro) © <3) o o 2 — S
alist | ose ol _ O | 4 A HlH [HA A A A
Om Im. | Cm | Om. | Cm. Om. | Gm. | Cm Cm. | Om. | Om..| Gm. | Cn.
349a,| 22.8 | 36] 292] 30.5] 13.0) 11.7) 4.7] 3.7] 343) 5.6| 21.7] 5.6 0.24 | § ies a
| 1 | 52— il
1471a | 25.2 | 5.2 | 38:6] 35.2 | 14.7/123 | 5.3) 42/397] G3] 267] 19 0.25 |§ ee
i 55—56
Beer at) 3.8") 20.9) S107) 15.4 12.8) 5-6) 4.1 | 3600!) GA ease) Sse Ora se ee |
t 49—51
(285) ||aees sal oe eece| Meee Sees MAGMETS tel SeGe! <4h2n |e S755 lO ieee eee ~.,- s8=a8
| IU 49—419
a567)| 25:8 |... (RCBAO RSH eT5H 0!) 1268.) 5y4y | V4eSblesee alk octane seek Bras aeeey ee ae)
| | j 253? 3 |
BORG 22 0 | 14.0) S2H20 2908 1114.0} 121} bud) 450 |8682) | 4. BF oae5e |) Sace 2) ; 50-5)
| | (Gye sil
12| 24.5} 4.0) 31.8| 32.6] 14.0 712.8| 5.0| 4.0] 37.0 | 96.8 ]...-.. BUT heees I$ {55255
| ie 54—52
14) 26.0} 4.0 | 31.0 | 32.2 1214.2 |712.8] 4.2] 3.8] 35.5] 65]... 5.8 § 255—
t= 253
| | RG 4O=de
168 | 24.9| 4.3 | 32.2) 33.6] 14.4) 13.9/ 4.3 | 3.45) 37.5 ]......| 23.8) 60/ 03). je—
| | =
| | |
47-1
23302 | 21.7] 4.0] 29.0] 30.1 | 14.3 13.0] 5.05, 3.@/33.5| 5.0] 21.7] 5.9] 0.3 ) ae
* Labeled Clymenia alope.
6. TURSIO Wagler.
Tursio, Wagler, Nat. Syst. Amphib., 1830, Pp. 34.
eae eraalae Lilljeborg, Upsala Univ. Arsskrift, 1861, p.5.
Professor Flower (List, p. 497) is inclined to believe that the finless
dolphins on which this genus is erected may prove to belong to Pro-
delphinus. Until the skeleton is obtained it will be impossible to de-
cide whether this view is correct or otherwise. Theskuli in the National
Museuin (No. 8160, obtained by Mr. Dall), however, which is known to
be that of a finless dolphin, presents certain characters which make it
probable that this genus has claims to recognition equally with Lageno-
rhynchus, Prodelphinus, and other genera of the family.
In the skulls in the College of Surgeons, London, and the National
Museum, respectively, and in that figured in the Ostéographie (PI.
XXXVI, figs. 3 and 3a) the pterygoids are apart at their base, and, ex-
cept in the first mentioned, throughout their entire length. In an adult
skull in the Berlin Museum from Yeddo, Japan, collected by Dr. Hil-
gemlorf, ihe pterygoids are long and are not in contact distally. | If,
when more specimens have been accumulated, this character is found
78 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
to hold good, it willaidin distinguishing this genus from Lagcnorhynchus,
Prodelphinus, Tursiops, and Delphinus, its nearest allies.
In the skullin the National Museum the free margins of the maxille
behind the notch are thinned out as in Sagmatias. I neglected to note
this character in the skull in the College of Surgeons, and Van Beneden
and Gervais figure only the lower side of their specimen.
The mandible of our specimen is remarkable for its extreme attenua-
tion anteriorly. It is bent downward and is not keeled anteriorly. In
Cuvier’s figure of ZL. peronii the mandible is bent downward, but is dis-
tinctly keeled (Oss. fossiles, 4th ed., pl. 222, figs. 5-6). .
The scapula of L. peronii, figured by Cuvier (Oss. foss., 4th ed., pl.
224, fig. 20), is, as pointed out, remarkabie for its width as compared
with its height. The acromion and coracoid are also very large.
The genus may be provisionally defined as follows: No dorsal fin.
Pterygoids apart in the median line, at least at the base. Maxille not
thickened behind the notch.
Two species are tolerably well known, the one, Z. peronii, from the
South seas, and the other, L. borealis, from the North Pacific. They may
be distinguished by their coloration, as follows:
1. Beak and pectoral fins white.-..-.-.-. 2... <.-- Fs asics sero eajasietnaieenis L. peronié
2. Beal and pectoralifins'dark, like the back2s:.¢4-—- s+ eee. 42-2 nee L. boreatis
TURSIO PERONII (Lacépéde).
Delphinus peronii, Lacépéde, Hist. nat. des Cétacés, 1804, p. 316.
Delphinus leucorhamphus Peron (MS.), fide Lacépede, Hist. nat. des Cétacés, 1804,
p. 316. ;
Leucorhamphus peronii, Lilljeborg, Upsala Uniy. Arsskrift, 1861, p. 5.
Neither Lacépéde nor Desmarest (Mammalogie, p. 517) seems to have
suspected that P eron’s Dauphin leucorhamphe was without dorsal fin, but
Cuvier,* having obtained a skin from India through Dussumier, in
which the dorsal was absent, while the colors corresponded to those of
Peron’s dolphin, coneludes that the latter was finless. He identifies
his specimen with the D. peronti of Lacépede.
Very few specimens of this species have been preserved. The skull
figared by Van Beneden and Gervais (Ostéog. pi. 38, fig. 3) is presuma-
bly that received by Cuvier from Captain Houssard,t though these au-
thors do not state that it isthe same. I unfortunately failed to see this
specimen when in Paris. Gray (Cat. Seals and Whales, p. 277) gives
measurements of a skullin the same museum “from Peron,” but I think
that there must be some mistake regarding this statement. There is a
skull (No. 3029) in the College of Surgeons, London, which Professor
Flower has identified with this species. The four skulls (Nos. 17, 18,
19, 20) in the Leyden Museum, which are labeled D. peronti, do not
* Recherches sur les Ossemens fossiies, 4™° éd., viii, pt. 2, 1836, p. 107.
+t F, Cuvier has Houssart (Hist. nat. Cétacés, p. 165).
TURSIO PERONII. 79
seem to me to belong to this species. One of them (No. 20) is appar-
ently that mentioned by Schlegel under this species in the Abhandlungen
(Heft 1, p. 24). It most resembles Prodelphinus frenatus.
Judging from an authentic skull of Z. borealis in the National Museum
(presently to be described), I believe that there can be no reason to
doubt the correctness of Professor Flower’s identification of skull No.
3029 in the College of Surgeons. Itis from Tasmania. The total length
is 44e™, The triangular area in front of the nares is but slightly con-
cave. The intermaxill, which are much depressed, do not touch in
the median line; they are farthest apart at the distal extremity. The
central portion of the symphysis below is raised above the level of the
lower surface of the rami. The coronoid is high. The pterygoids, as
already stated, touch only at the tip. The palate is convex.
All these characters are presented by the skull of Z. borealis and are,
therefore, of no moment in distinguishing the two species. Indeed, Iam
at a loss to find cranial characters by which to distinguish them, since
the proportions of the two skulls (see p. 82) are on the whole very much
the same. In the skull of L. peroniti, however, the temporal fosse are
relatively smaller, the mandible is shorter, its depth opposite the coro-
noid process is less, and it is less attenuated atthe extremity. The right
intermaxillary bone in our skull of L. borealis ends proximally opposite
the middle of the nares, instead of running back to the posterior wall,
but this is very probably an individual variation.
The skull figured in the @stéographie is also much like that of ZL. bore-
alis from California, but we know that the former is from south of the
equator, while, so far as I am aware, no porpoise having the coloration
of L, borealis has been observed in southern waters. It would appear,
therefore, that the two species are closely alike in cranial characteris-
tics, but widely dissimilar in coloration.
The figures of L. peronii given by D’Orbigny and Gervais (specimens
from Cape Horn) and Gray (specimens from midway between Cape Horn
and New Zealand) agree very closely, the chief difference being that
in the former the pectoral fin is represented as dark in the center of the
posterior margin.
Lesson’s figure (Voyage of the Coquille, pl. 9, fig. 1) represents a dol-
phin with white flukes and an elongated beak, which characters are also
mentioned in the text.*
This may be a distinct species, though it is more than probable that
the figure is inaccurate. The measurements of the exterior given by
Lesson ¢ differ much from those which I find in the notes upon LZ. bore-
* Zoology, Voyage of the Coquille, 1, pt. 1, p. 180. Pda
80 BULLETIN 36, UNITED: STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
alis which Mr. Dall has kindly placed at my disposal. In the following
table are given both series of measurements, reduced to centimeters :*
L. nent From
-. Mr. Dall’s notes.
Measurements, L. ii bee From. 8160 ¢. 200 miles
eSson: off Cape Mendo-
; eino, Cal.
= | Se
Centimeters. Centimeters.
RO thlglenauh pes, sdonscaee aaa oes Hee Soe 184.1 246.4
Circumference opposite the genitals-.......-.......... 64.9 53.3
Circumterence of the head at the eyes..-........-...- 73.1 57. 2
Length of the tail. - wre are aetna 43.3 | 40.6
L ensth from extre mity of snout to pectoral - nee Soca 59.5 | - 63.5
Length from angle of mouth toe VG ade tee es Selo oe 5.4 9.5
Genethfromvey eto pectoral... -.-. 2. /cseseccs ee ecole. 29.7 | 30.5
Le ength ofithepectonaliss 25. fd anes bee ee see 31.1 30. 5
Vie ength from extremity of snout to corner of mouth.. 27.1 24.8
L ength OF the tall: so Sec 2 sate amiunstace Bea es sc eae Soe DOH fag Sram emo Sete
Length of the penis ........--..... sale Seloeolste ss signe ace | ANE |lcooame anaognoSsese +:
ean othyo f thle 6y@en= s.ccicdacema sec decion chet ae iy Qe Fotis tiga tame
Length from anus to extremity of tail ..........-..-..- 440705) ." 57. 2
Lene ties thorns | xtsesssotec shoe sack ae seen eeeeamen IG BS sao insinwnla seasons
*L understand this to be the antero-posterior length of either fluke. The fourth measurement is
the width between the extremities of the flukes.
It appears that Lesson’s specimen was much stouter than the L. bore-
alis observed by Mr. Dall, and had wider flukes and longer pectoral fins
and mouth. Mr. Dall’s sketch of his specimens shows these characters.
It represents a dolphin more slender than even that figured by D’Or-
bigny and Gervais; and while, in all the figures of the southern forms
the snout and pectoral fins at least are white, in Mr. Dall’s figure the
black color extends to all parts of the body except an area on the belly
and a small space on the under side of the lower jaw.
There is a painted skin of this species (No. 6086) in the Zoological
Museum of Berlin. The beak and pectoral fins are painted white, and
the same color extends upon the upper anterior margin of the flukes.
That there are two distinct species of right-whale porpoises can not,
I think, be doubted.
TURSIO BOREALIS (Peale).
Delphinapterus borealis, Peale, U.S. Explor. Exped., Mamm. Ornith., 1848, p, 35, Pl.
vill, fig. 2.
Leucorhamphus borealis, Dall, in Secammon’s Marine Mamm., 1874, p. 296.
The general accuracy of Peale’s figure of this animal is confirmed by
Mr. Dall’s MS. notes upon, and figure of, a second specimen (already re-
ferred to) taken 200 miles off Cape Mendocino, California, a short dis-
tance south of the locality in which it was first observed by Peale. Peale’s
brief description applies to Mr. Dall’s figure, except that in the latter
the lower jaw is represented as protruding beyond the upper and is
white at the extremity. In both figures the pectorals and flukes are
black and in both there is a lozenge shaped white area on the breast,
drawn out posteriorly into a line which extends to the flukes. In Mr.
*For fuller measurements of L. borealis, see p. 81.
TURSIO BOREALIS. Sl
Dall’s figure the central portion of the under side of the flukes is white,
It should be remembered that the individual which Peale sketehed was
probably young, being only about 4 feet long. Mr. Dall’s specimen was
a male 8 feet 1 inch long.
Scammon also figures this species in his Marine Mammalia (PL. XIX,
fig. 3). He gives the colors as in Mr. Dall’s sketch, but makes the form
much more robust and the head high like that of a young Hyperoodon.
We have no means of knowing whether this figure was made from mem-
ory or from a captured specimen of the species.
The general color of the specimens obtained by Dr. Hilgendorf, in
Yeddo, Japan, was black. On the belly is a white area, which in the
young individual begins on a line with the eye, but in the adule extends
farther forward and ends on a biuish fork, which goes to the corner of
the mouth. The anterior third of the lower jaw is whitish violet, and
the margin of the lower lip is black.
The following measurements were taken by Mr. Dall. A part of them,
reduced to centimeters, have already been given in comparison with
Lesson’s measurements of L. peronii on page 80.
Sen ans of Tursio borealis (Peale), male, taken 200 miles off Cape Mendocino, Cali-
fornia, Datoben. 1868.
Inches
Lob Gi UES S522 Se nr eminr e S ee 97.0
H=iremMilnyOtsnOUb tOMneleof MOUTH ..... 2.525. s.cccs sc nsce eeceee selene meee 9.75
Eprsterie Mal lbyeO tas MN ONGMOLe Ce a tees os, cle oui hs oo + neice dete) cose Rene 13. 0
IDESTREMINEN GE SAO KO IO) 100) en rn ae eos ee ee o 14.0
Extremity of snout to anterior edge of pector:| fin. .-...--.-..----.---------- 20. 0
Extremity of snout to posterior edge of pectoral fin .-.......-.....-----..---. 28.5
ANG OH MHOU TS i) ClG Sea i nie ieee nc 3h 75)
Heron GmevOraOvomlinerOf MOUth 5 Joccsceses ces's coo ses eteee See eee eee ee 0.75
Kenvihvoranienomedeeot pectoral fin. .+......-.-. ..22-- sees seesee foee seer 12.0
Length of posterior edge of pectoral fin, from base to angle ...--..----....... 3.5
Length of posterior edge of pectoral fin, from angle to tip...--...-.-----...-. 55
Mit neeineenmnmlonnrat) base. 5. .-22o. 2. -2s0s 8.22. s2+ scent 22a eee ee 4.0
Width of pectoral fin from posterior angle to middle of anterior margin_....-. 3.5
ILAMGWN OF [DROIR. 5.55 ces See ese eee eee eee ae eee eee BSS oc dense 2.5
Length of portion of lower jaw protruding beyond upper. ...-----.-........-- 0.5
Peer ee em MUUICCS (55.622 ian os 2 22 = sto, soc apse seein Hee eee 16.0
ANSTO“ POStoMotlonoimon elbher MUKe = <= s2= sae oer seein cate eee 6.0
Distance from median notch to extremity of either fluke -..........222.-2..-. 10.25
Distance from median notch to the ending of the superior margin or keel of the
ici | eRe SRE yes a icata at savas 3/5) (= aield) oo Se ate eis Sa eee Se eee 2.0
Height of the caudal peduncle at insertion of flukes...2..........---..-..---- 3. 75
Diameter dnronnside: to side) ab.same point... 5-25. <- sao e enone eee eee Tet
Distance from notch of flukes to anus...--- sbiett ele De staxeie wie cis out pee aire ae oe 2255
ID AMGNN Ol Qi 44555 Seoqmeenes Soeso7 OoeesO Jone Saa6 ecobe noHson c6oec0 Gaanee se 10)
lLamgilh oF greg! Pips sspeeeeeeecd bosepecsssetee soce.coscds cee sHDoSSeoS Geaece 6.0
Pistance trom notch of flukes to genital slit... ..5.222 72022 2252 sees Aoselee he eee
JOS 21g OTC eee aoe So ae eer OA Beeb see Serre co seer ease oe See 15. 0
Galea Wie lysate eiiNeNVos obo paeeE Ganece Spe bso eso Sc cos bo qocecoseso He=ose cane 26.5
Distance around head from eye to eye below --: 2-2-2 2-25. 2-5. ee oes ener neeeee 12.5
Distance: between pectoral fins ---.<--2-2 -.5-0- ss-seee~ eo Soe stone ane eee see 12.0
18378—Bull. 36
82 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
Incbes.
Width across the mouthat the angles... 22 22.42 epee seme eee 9.0
Girchofbodywratansertion Omiukess- eee. eee eeeereeeee en eeeen cee eee 7.0
Girth of bod ytat anus 22 opens selene cies cae Semone eee alee rree seer eee 15.5
Girth-of bodycat/genitalislita. sos aac scissile is esate eerie eee 21.0
Girth of body at a distance of 4 feet from flukes.-................ Semsec eens 33. 0.
Girthyof body shehind thejpectoralitins) = sees ose eeee eae eer eee eee eee eee 36. 0
Girth of body initront of thespectoral nse sees se eee eae saree el se een
Scammon states that he has seen this species as far south as San
Diego Bay, California, and as far north as Bering Sea.
The differences in color and proportions between this species and L.
peronii are so great that we may expect to find differences in the skel-
etons when the latter become known. The skulls, however, as already
stated, show few differences. I have already referred to the shortness
of the right intermaxillary bone, and it may be that this is a character
peculiar to ZL. borealis. In Cuvier’s figure of L. peronit the proximal
end of the right intermaxilla is in the normal position.
TURSIO BOREALIS AND PERONII.
Table of measurements.
Cape Men- |
aill35 =I)
Breadth of | & 2g
| peak— ee a
x 5
= | SS ov
| Let 2
Stes Bee ae
. | = = o | ott 2s
B | (S B= | Sos
3 “ a 1 Ci sali | a 2) Ow Sms
a Species. Collection. Locality. tet eel 2 se 2 ye Sree
= 3 & o | AO i ah & aay
A ow ~ eh || ears i} ae ac
o os eo SH hee) Ss aS a5
5 A ° © Be 3 2 &
oo | rea aN Sees |) ae Ciba) ee eet pe
= Ss | 2 a Bt a
E (2) a | BS | Sen aes
~ | Kv +. i=} aS ) |
a | ih eh i) o | Dad i mH cal
= —— = — — ——-l |-- |— | — ——: | —--—
| | Hl
| | | Cn. | Om. | Om. | Cm. | Om. | Cm.
3029 | Tursio peronii ..| R.Col.Surg ..| Tasmania-.-).-- | 44.0 | 24.7! 11.2) 61] 3.6); 81
Iecectio) ceemooceses|! [PRO Cines |esasoscousade |----| ZOE (S|) EP) Ute a | 2 | ecoolfasce ese
|| Oss! tossi]ies- | | |
8160 | Tursio borealis..| U.S. Nat. Mus.| 200 miles off | & | 438.7 | 24 | 11.0} 5.6] 3.1 7.8
| |
| | docino, Cal.| | | |
TAS sy || gan O eee seers Berlin Mus ...; Yeddo,Japan ad.|....-- 26.9) 1115.3) |) rceoek Ieee | peer
|
, as | = alee j | | jo 5 I be
"3 ~+‘| Extremity | Breadth | Temporal | 8 A EB 2
= | of beak to—) between— fosse. re | g : =
a | oes | Sat a ee HH oe ie
2 | = a is am le
3 >) = . Sa : n R chm |o
3 alls O> maliees | o ag! ices = ao le
: | Ps = n ° so lo
be aS, oes) Aan eo 5 fe) me = So | 5
i) a shee |Past rey | oe ae fe pull age [eee Rows a
2 Ai en|s. Onn Peaiscen ane 4a Ks} aa | SL) aeales we)
ran nD ~~ A ]
EI SMR ereniiia | on B. [pes | oS esas $
2 8S |eb| sf) en eS 2 Bo | Sco | ks low ~
A + i) AR DD «4 re =| n laa He,
a a as SE eS) as ty ey SH oo | S
3 oat |S Pt eoce | Sy ° iS) 2 ee |e a
or =) Sa i + | a a us| | RK: oO
S ze + erste wn oe > | Pr | | | est 1A rz
a oh | LD = 30 60 ve) ef a0 ep = A eB
ee q a = bs 7a, tae a ay 8 a a | Ea ye 2
Cs oO 3 eB A H A 2 | ee
<) Sa A aS o |R H | A HR ice 4/5 A
x es
~ = |-
| Cm.| Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm.| Cm. | Cm.| Om.| Cm. | Cm.| Cm. | Cm page
3029 | 21.3) 4 Slee OOO le ae ainic 16 CE oy al | StRCE eae 21GB) OnOinlaa ; N43
| |
1 90 5 | | | ONS eerie a SE 5 ede:
20,5 ).----+].-+--- | eaaenita foot Sep eal Whe aks aS ae | af a 6 42—44
8160 |-20.1 | 5.1 | 23 30.8 | 17.6 | 15.8 (ill GRO ESHTiG ii eeeaae 20.7 6.9 0.3) 5 47—47
| |
BeD. | aes: | Papo a | 1728s eee el GY SH NDE 25 lees oe | eee see | ee NPA RSL ere
i \ |
GENUS LAGENORHYNCHUS. 83
7. LAGENORHYNCHUS Gray.
—=Lagenorhynchus, Gray, Zoology of the Erebus and ‘Terror, 1816, p. 34.
Electra, Gray, Supp]. Cat. Seals and Whales, 1871, p. 76.
>Leucopleurus, Gray, Suppl. Cat. Seals and Whales, 1871, p. 78.
> Lagenorhynchus, Gray, Suppl. Cat. Seals and Whales, 1871, p. 79.
Professor Flower, in his recent admirable review of the family Del-
phinide, gives the following diagnosis of the genus Lagenorhynchus :*
Rostrum scarcely exceeding the length of the cranium; broad at the base and
gradually tapering toward the apex; depressed. Pterygoid pene normal, meeting
in the middle line. Teeth small, not exceeding 4™™ in diameter, ~ 33 ®t es Vertebrie
very numerous, 80 to 90. Spinous and transverse processes of the Meier vertebriv
very long and slender; bodies short. Externally, head with a short but not very
distinct beak.
In the course of my studies upon the genus I have found no cause to
take exception to this diagnosis, except so far as the number of teeth
and vertebrie are concerned. Ifthe opinion that the Lagenorhynchus
thicolea of Gray belongs to oe genus is correct, oe maximum number
of teeth must be set down as = or = instead of 3 On another page I
have shown that Lag enorhynchus obliquidens, Gill, has but 74 to 76 ver-
tebre.
In addition to the characters summed up by Professor Flower, I have
observed that the mandibular foramina in this genus are usually more
crowded together at the symphysis than in Prodelphinus and Delphinus,
and are not preceded by so deep canals. The presence of an area of
bright color rather high up on the side, between the dorsal fin and the
flukes, likewise appears to be characteristic of the genus.
The genus is, unquestionably, very closely allied to Prodelphinus.
The teeth are, ox the whole, more numerous, and the vertebre less
numerous in the latter genus, but some species of Prodelphinus have a less
number of teeth and a greater number of vertebr than some species
of Lagenorhynchus, and vice versa. The proportional length of the beak,
the breadth and flatness of the intermaxill, appear to be the chief cra-
nial distinguishing characters which can be brought forward at present.
The number of species which have been assigned to this genus is
quite large. In the following lists are included: (1) The species which
appear to me valid and as properly belonging in the genus, and their
synonyms; (2) species referred to the genus by previous writers, but
which I regard as belonging elsewhere; (3) nominal species.
1. VALID SPECIES AND THEIR SYNONYMS.
1. Luyenorhyiuchus acutus Gray. 1828.
Syn. Delphinus cschrichtii Schlegel. 1841.
Delphinus leucopleurus Rasch. 1843.
Lagcnorhynchus perspicillatus Cope. 1876.
Lagenorhynchis gubernator Cope. 1876.
* Proc. Zool. Soc. ence 1883, p. o11.
84 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
2. Lagenorhynchus fitzroyi Waterhouse. 1840.
. Lagenorhynchus albirostris Gray. 1846.
4. Lagenorhynchus electra Gray. 1846.
Syn. Lagenorhynchus asia Gray. 1846.
Phocena pectoralis Peale. 1848.
Delphinus fusiformis Owen. 1866.
. Lagenorhynchus cruciger VOrbiguy and Gervais. 1847.
Syn. Lagenorhynchus clanculus Gray. 1849.
Lagenorhynchus latifrons (Paris Museum).
6. Lagenorhynchus thicolea Gray. 1849.
Syn. Lagenorhynchus breviceps of Wagner.
. Lagenorhynchus obliquidens Gill. 1865.
. Lagenorhynchus superciliosus Schlegel. 1841.
(se)
on
ms
2. SPECIES TRANSFERRED TO THE GENUS BY PREVIOUS WRITERS, BUT WHICH I
REGARD AS BELONGING ELSEWHERE.
Lagenorhynchus lateralis of Cassin. Upon Delphinus lateralis, Peale.
Lagenorhynchus ceruleo-albus of Gray. Upon Delphinus cwruleo albus, Meyen.
? Lagenorhynchus albirostratus of Dall. From a skull supposed to be identical with
Delphinus albirostratus, Peale.
Lagenorhynchus de Castelnau of Van Beneden.
3. NOMINAL SPECIES, UNDESCRIBED, OR DESCRIBED ONLY FROM INDIVIDUALS SEEN
AT A DISTANCE.
Delphinus cruciger Quoy and Gaimard.
Delphinus albigenus Quoy and Gaimard.
Delphinus bivittata Lesson and Garnot.
SPECIES INCORRECTLY REFERRED TO THE GENUS.
1. Lagenorhynchus lateralis Cassin.
Upon Delphinus lateralis Peale. U.S. Explor. Exped., vot, Mamm. & Ornith., 1848,
p. 39, Pl. vin, fig. 1.
Cassin assigns this species to Gray’s genus Lagenorhynchus without
giving any reason for so doing. He states that he was unable to ‘find
any specimen in the collection of the expedition.”»* Ihave been equally
unsuccessful in finding any traces of it. The species must, therefore,
be judged by Peale’s figure and description.
The figure in question represents a dolphin having a long beak, such
as exists in Delphinus and Prodelphinus, and which does not at all re-
semble the short plowshare-like beak of Lagenorhynchus. Again, the
style of coloration is more like that which obtains in Delphinus or Pro-
delphinus than that of Lagenorhynchus. Finally, the teeth exceed the
number usual in Lagenorhynchus, viz,
For these reasons, taken together, I should exclude the species from
Lagenorhynchus. It will be impossible to say whether it is a Delphinus
or Prodelphinus, unless more external characters distinguishing those
genera are brought forward. On the whole, however, it seems to me
most probable that Peale’s dolphin belongs to Prodelphinus and is closely
allied to P. marginatus (Duvernoy).
* Cassin, U. 8. Explor. Exped., Mamm. and Ornith., 1858, p. 33.
LAGENORHYNCHUS ACUTUS. 85
.
2. Lagenorhynchus caruleo-albus Gray.
Founded on Delphinus cvruleo-albus, Meyers.
I reject this species on account of the shape of its head and the eolor-
ation, which seem to me characteristic of Prodelphinus. The type-skull
is that of a Prodelphinus. (See page 62.)
3. Lagenorhynchus albirostratus (?) Dall.
Scammon’s Marine Mammalia, 1874, Appendix, p. 293.
Mr. Dallrefers to the Delphinus albirostratus of Peale (which he assigns
to the genus Lagenorhynchus), a skull obtained by Captain Marston in
the Pacific. te does so apparently because Captain Marston’s descrip-
tion of the exterior of the individuals of the school from which the speci-
men in guestion was obtained seemed to him to agree with the descrip-
tion of Peale’s D. albirostratus. Iam inclined to believe, however, after
studying the measurements of the skull, that Captain Marston’s speci-
men should be referred to Prodelphins doris. Whether D. albirostratus,
Peale, should also be referred to that species must always be more or
less uncertain, because it is only known from the exterior. Whatever
decision may be finally reached regarding that species, it seems to me
best for the present to refer Mr. Dall’s specimen to Prodelphins rather
than to Lagenorhynchus.
4. Lagenorhynchus de Castelnau Van Bencden.
Bull. de Acad. R. Belgique, 2™ sér., Xxxvi, 1873, p. 38, fig. 2.
This name has been applied by Professor Van Beneden to a figure of
a young dolphin, executed by the Comte de Castelnau. From the fact
that the name was not given in Latin form it is evident that it was not
intended as a formal scientific appellation, but simply as a common
name, 7. e., Castelnan’s Lagenorhynchus.
Judging from the form of the head and the coloration I am inclined
to believe that the figure represents a young Delphinus delphis, and I
Shall therefore omit further reference to it.
REVIEW OF THE VALID SPECIES OF LAGENORHYNCHUS.
LAGENORHYNCHUS ACUTUS Gray.
Delphinus acutus, Gray, Spic. Zool., 1828, p. 2.
Lagenorhynchus acutus, Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, 1846, pl. X11.
Delphinus eschrichtii, Schlegel, Abh. Gebiete Zool., etc., 1841, p. 23.
Delphinus leucopleurus, Rasch, Nyt Mag. for Naturvidens., 1v, 1843, p. 97, pls. 2, 3.
Leucopleurus arcticus, Gray, Synopsis Whales and Dolphins, 1868, p. 7.
Lagenorhynchus perspicillatus, Cope, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. Philadelphia, 1876, p. 136.
Lagenorhynchus gubernator, Cope, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1876, p. 138,
pl. Iv.
It is much to be regretted that the type of Gray’s D. acutus is lost,
as Professor Flower’s painstaking investigation seems to prove it to be.
86 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
The original description is far from satisfactory, and, indeed, applies
equally well to several other species of the genus. Since, however, Gray
expanded his description in later publications so that itis plain to what
species he referred, it seems best on the whole to retain the name which
has secured a footing in the literature rather than to displace it by
Schlegel’s D. eschrichtii, published many years later.
I am unable to enter into the question of the identity of Schlegel’s
D. eschrichtti and Rasch’s D. leucopleurus, since I saw the type-skeleton
of neither. Professor Flower does not state that he saw the type of the
former himself, but simply that it “is still to be seen in the Leyden
Museum.” He is convineed, however, of the identity of the two
species. If such be the truth (I do not presume to appeal from Pro-
fessor Flower’s decision), the statement of the number of vertebre in
Schlegel’s description must be incorrect. The formula derived from
his description would be as follows: C. 7; D.15; L. 32; Ca, 37 = 91.
This number corresponds more closely with that found in L. albirostris
than with that found in ZL. leucopleurus. I shall use Gray’s name, L.
acutus, throughout this section as synonymous with LD. leucopleurus and
DL. eschrichtii.
The Lagenorhynchus perspicillatus and Lagenorhynchus gubernator of
Professor Cope I regard identical with Z. acutus. DL. gubernator, how-
ever, is founded on a young individual (as I have determined from an
examination of the type-cast and a photograph of the individual from
which the same was made), and may, therefore, be disregarded. The
type-cast of DL. perspicillatus agrees absolutely in color with Rasch’s
figure of L. leucopleurus, and the measurements also agree. ‘The meas:
urements of ZL. perspicillatus also agree very closely with those given
by Duguid for LZ. acutus. Moreover, the measurements of the large
series of skulls mentioned by Professor Cope, which is still in the
Museum, agree with those of the type of ZL. leucopleurus, as will be
seen by reference to the table on p.87. I have also carefully compared
one of the skeletons from Cape Cud, referred to by Professor Cope, with
a skeleton of J. acutus from the Farée Islands, which was lent me for
study by Dr. J.S. Billings, Director of the U.S. Army Medical Museum,
and can find absolutely no differences but such as are referable to indi-
vidual variation. The figure accompanying Professor Cope’s paper
(Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1876, pl. tv), though styled Lagenorhyn-
chus perspicillatus, is really that of one’of the casts of the young L.
gubernator. It agrees exactly with the photograph in the Department
of Mammals, and may be regarded as an excellent figure of a young
L. acutus. The name ZL. bombifrons, alluded to by Professor Cope (1. ¢.,
p. 138), is a slip of the pen, LZ. perspicillatus being intended.
The distinctions between tnis species and the remaining members of
the genus will be pointed out in treating of the latter.
LAGENORHYNCHUS FITZROYI. 87
Table of measurements.
LAGENORHYNCHUS ACUTUS.
| Breadth of | 2 ie
beak— 2 os
= eA.
=a of ree wee
Fe | aie
3 pel ons 28
| 5 : , cae Par} ! — z
= Collection. Type of— | Locality. ; = Sa cs iS >
a , ons 2 = = | re =
3 be | ae Tad re eee ees
ay Se ee a oes eee Uibcse:
= a|a Se fee We er ces
$ “| = Alene lines als Ses
ij D (=) o a }; +» | se io
5) 7) H 4 th | ©
[etl t Cm. | Om. | Om. | Cm. i Cm. Cm.
StH) eyo bite ee | eae oeeeceeee | Greenland .-.-.-- ----| 38.8 | 19.81) 10.2 | 6:6} 41 8.1
3026 1 R Col. sire. - 71... .--- 2... Drobak, Norway]|..-.| 39.7 | 20.6} 10.4! 7.0) 3.8! 8.5
2025 _ do PMP ae Aasie scion Coast of Norway]....| 40.6 | 20.9 | 11.1] 7.3] 4.4 8.2
OR Ie Ni DS ha NC lt Ut CE Worway, .22.:.2:|<>. |) 389) 1 19,60] 10,9) || (Gx4) 348) 8.4
es fal Noe at Cee ear Cape Code. scc2\-22 |) 40 7 | 214 TO Oso ans R.4
1 Dat OS eer | ee ee | ae Oban semicon lao, [ BOLOTe ONL OTe Gl one 8.9
eye Ot nasi PEO Seemtss et ee bees 40.9 | 21.1 | 10.9] 6.9) 3.8 8.7
PRU Ns Ol a cacee.e KOOL een seee eee | ---| 41.4 | 21.1] 11.7] 7.9) 4.8 8.7
HOGI Fe ans 257 Tees Pear ae 42.5 | 21.6| 11.4] 7.6) 4.3 8.9
TEATS BERG sere --do warne|--=-| 41.4 | 20.8 | 11.4 | Tees aetna 8.4
' 1
4 Extremity | Breadth | Temporal | ree lies a. eae
E of beak to— between— |__ fossa. = eyes “|e
6 ja |; sae ar | se ilon (see
E cee dale EB Smee. ma la e aa | 5
2 = ao tn eam g = BO|dag|as| ss 3
a | 4 | a2 | 43) = 2 @ a |ge/28/28)83| 4
“ei Sel | etey | test pee 22 a | ee | Se a ee ere 2
3 3 o5.|aa|eo0 Fm = 2o}*+o | om ‘= £
a 8 |8p| 27 | 2B os A! eS |e | Bo | oo %
2 | 3 |84/.,8 | 5% Ee S | oH Sas Wee | We
on aa] tate) Ree a (eae ty : a tee 3 Seq ficetiel i) cey Rea ilirs Y
} ee) + (ap > li tet Sy hep Ey | oe) =) i} am na 2
FE tm | 2 SEN | mm |e S to = eo | 0 | &c ewOlaA r=
= Buiwas daa | a Si pt = Pee ee f= A Bese ena > 5
iS) = | 4 i) So | = A Seis a A a A
Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. a:
Bien 4 tea) 52) 26,7) 19.81 17.8 | 7.8) 4.6|.-.---1----.-[..-- | AP i
* 4 40—37
Scone Malmo ONT OMneo0) | 20.3 | 177 | 7.3) 4.1 1.33.0)) 4.0 1 1857 | Grae eee, {oR
3025 | 16.5} 5.4 | 27.9 | 26.3 | 21.2) 17.9| 7.9} 4.4 | 33.6] 4.4] 16.5] 6.6 }.----- 5 ==
| ! —
ri | | § 36-37
PPO Wiest mons oo | et, 2 | 19.8 | 18.0 | 679-|- 4.37) 82.3 [2222.2 e- 6.4 ig Be a7
| | § 36—34
14327 | 19.1] 3.3 | 25.9 | 29.3 PBA ate vera a cen Al aoe elseesrale eee cee ool! coccc! ?
|
| | ¢ 35 6
TAD Gre eliaGale eon! |)\245 7) |baieo | 20-6 1 18)6 1) 7.6.) 46.) -522) os eee oe ee 0.4 |
| | | 5 8535
14a dee aes | 25.5) | 27.0 | 2k 1 pis, Ly 7.1 4.3 |---| ooo. 1) orm | eee | pemee ?
| | | ' | |
| | 737
14281 | 18.6 | 3.6 | 26.0 | 29.0 22.4) 19.6| 7.9 | 4.1 }...-..) ..--. ee ee es ; ta
| | | (5 3535
14244 | 18.6 | 3.6 | 26.2 | 29.1 | PA oe TSR Te MRR Re Sal ie es TO rcs (esa) Iso sooe josacaci acca 2 ——
| | | ¢ 3728
TAI608) 182 Ge asOl eG. al eas oreere er 1e.0) | 76°) 46) oo comaw [nwo se | a= n= ct 1
: | |
| |
*One of Rasch’s types of L. leucopleurus.
LAGENORHYNCHUS FITZROYI (Waterhouse).
Delphinus Fitzroyi, Waterhouse, Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle, 1, Mammalia,
1839, p. 25, pl. 10.
Lagenorhynchus Fitzroyi, Flower, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1883, pp. 490 and 511.
Regarding this species I can say nothing except to express my con-
currence in Professor Flower’s opinion, namely, that it is possibly
88 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
identical with ZL. clanculus. The type-specimen consists only of the
beak (with the integuments) cut off close behind the last teeth. The
length of the superior tooth row is 6.8 inches ; width between the last
upper teeth on opposite sides, 2.4 inches; length of tooth row of man-
dible, 6.6 inches; symphysis, 1.5 inches; depth of ramus at last tooth,
1.3 inches ; width of elevated portion of the maxillary joining the pala-
: : a: 29-29
tines, 1.4 inches; teeth, 5-7
inves We
Fig. 1 represents the type specimen seen from above, reduced to a little
more than two-fifths natural size.
I have carefully compared the measurements of the exterior given
by Waterhouse with Duguid’s measurements of L. acutus,* and with
my own measurements of the type-cast of Professor Cope’s L. perspi-
cillatus but find no correspondence between them.
Compared with Z. perspicillatus (which I regard as identical with L.
acutus), Fitzroy’s dolphin appears to have a smaller dorsal fin, situated
farther from the extremity of the snout; and longer pectorals also
relatively farther from the extremity of the snout. The shape of the
head and the pattern of coloration seem to be very different.
This species cannot be properly studied until more specimens have
been obtained.
LAGENORHYNCHUS THICOLEA Gray.
Lagenorhynchus thicolea, Gray, Proce. Zool. Soc., London, 1849, p. 2.
Electra thicolea, Gray, Synopsis, Whales and Dolphins, 1868, p. 7, pl. 36; Suppl.
Cat. Seals and Whales, 1871, p. 77.
Clymenia (Electra) thicolea, Flower, Proc. Zool. Soc., London, 1883, p. 512.
? Delphinus breviceps, Wagner, Schreber’s Siiugeth., pl. 360, fig. 1; Jaquinot et
Pucheran, Zool. Voyage de J’Astrolabe et Zélée, 111, 1853, p.39; Atlas, Pl. 22,
forls
This species, like DZ. longidens, is one whose affinities are uncertain.
Founded upon a single defective skull, reported to have been ob-
tained on the west coast of North America, no opportunities are
afforded for an estimate of the individual variation to which it is prone,
or even for a very accurate determination of its cranial proportions.
Gray first placed the species in his genus Lagenorhynchus, and after-
*Ann. & Mag. N.H., (3), xiv, 1864, pp. 134, 135.
LAGENORHYNCHUS THICOLEA. 89
wards relegated it to the section Electra, which he raised to generic
rank. Professor Flower, in his recent admirable essay, seems first in
doubt as to whether it should not be assigned to Lagenorhynchus (P. Z.
S., 1883, p. 490), but later describes it in connection with the genus
Prodelphinus, and finally places it in his tentative list of species of
that genus (P. Z. 8., 1885, pp. 496 and 512) near P. obscurus.
The considerations which lead me to assign this species to Lagenorhyn-
chus are the same which influenced me in the case of ZL. longidens (p. 99),
to which in fact the present species appears to be closely related. It
differs from that species in that the beak is shorter and narrower, the
intermaxillaries narrower, the temporal fossce smaller and more oval.
But it differs also especially from LZ. longidens, and indeed from all other
species to which it can be approximated, in having about 42 teeth in
each ramus of the mandible. The teeth in the upper jaw would appear
to be 45-45, but their number can only be estimated on account of the
imperfect condition of the skull.
The label states that this skuil was derived from the west coast of
North America, and was taken out of Dr. Dickie’s collection. If the
record is correct, it is somewhat singular that the species was not met
with by Captain Scammon or Mr. Dall. There are no specimens in the
national collection which can be assigned to it.
LAGENORHYNCHUS BREVICEPS Wagner.
A skull of this species is figured by Messrs. Van Beneden and Ger-
vais,* under the name of Lagenorhynchus breviceps, but the authors do
not state explicitly that it is the type of Hombron and Jacquinot, fig-
ured in the atlas of the voyage of the Astrolabe. That the two figures
are not from the same specimen appears probable from the fact that the
latter represents an entire skull, while the former represents one from
which the top of the brain-case has been removed. In general appear-
ance the two figures though much alike are not identical. Professor
Flower has referred Messrs. Van Beneden and Gervais’s figure to
Prodelphinus.* Hombron and Jaequinot’s figure of the exterior,t how-
ever. represents a dolphin having the contours and the coloration of a
Lagenorhynchus, and the species must, I think, be referred to that
genus. Whether it should be regarded as identical with JL. thicolea is
perhaps somewhat questionable, for while the skull figured in the atlas
of the Astrolabe expedition agrees with the type-skull of L. thicolea the
teeth are considerably more numerous in the latter. The original
specimen of D. breviceps was from the Rio de la Plata.
It is to be observed, however, that the naturalists of the Astrolabe
expedition state that they found only fragments of a skull, ete., in the
collection. It is possible, therefore, that the skull which is figured as
*Ostéographie des Cétrcés, pl. XXXVI, fig. 2.
* Proc. Zoo). Soc., London, 1883, p. 496.
t Zool. Voyage Astrolabe et Zélée, atlas, pl. 22, fig. 1.
90
BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
entire in the atlas of the Astrolabe expedition, was afterwards broken,
and that it is this same skull which was figured by Messrs. Van Bene-
den and Gervais.
Table of measurements.
LAGENORHYNCHUS THICOLEA.
| a |e
Breadth of o 4
A o
beak— Q b a
= Sed ol
era ae eee
b AM |e
s aa a)
8 Ss Be can
2 : ic Dv. nS Rl
a | Collection. | Type of— Locality. 2 : a| . |3°| sas
5 : ; o o| © |e] Bas
A So a ee erst teh lf Geet eee)
2 a] Pi) Sales i) Ps ete
g = AS ;
&0 3 & Hp EE SS ysl mae
| 3 = | a | Qo
w bo | Ss + S Srey
3S a =| oe) 3 $25
oS eB ° o ~ » Y at!
[>] H H —
S mn A A 4 418 |S
= = | 4 |
; : Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. Om.
934a | Brit. Mus...| I. thicolea, | W coast North |...... Hi tay eA CD) || “SET © Ap 2.8 7.8
Gray. America.
| | Extremity | Breadth | Te 1 ele ia Ales
a ixtremity readth empora | a A
3 jof beak to—| between— | _ fossa. FS g S =
E Sia a Sateen alle
S oa B ra D bb =
a tallidgs alate 5 wb: og fae Poa ee
a SB ljaes|aa|s ® SS es cael sai re Shell 5
v ea] at — O = 2) = = 4 “oO B oO 0
= : eS Ip, lS ee eh ee ie eres EN a
a =| Se = 2 r= = 2 (a) =I ve)
| = a: BLE! |S oL-S a B= | os | os = 5
| a |E2ZE Ie 2s a a | SS eS So = £
= a8 S aS oo a 2) : a 5 i) Se
= 3 BO jae | aes a i) fa S a) on on iS
of a 3 Sl as . 212) : a | ir] S| = 5
ro) 7a Pe Ha |S nD OE = is| ~ ~ = ts o 2
2 ob ~ oF = so ta = co to £0 oa B A
+ =] 7 pach (se) Hs) ar =| i =) =] A i a
3 o 3 A A H om o v o ou o o 4 2
1S) =| H Bs io) jo} ae 4 =) 4 H 4 A A A
| |
Om. | Om. | Cm. | Gm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Cm. | Om. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm
Es 2
934a| 17.3 | 3.7 | 23.7 |-<--- igs tice 5.6| 41/311] 30/181] 6.1| 0.25 |4—(>)
42—42
1
1One centimeter should be added for breakage.
2An estimate.
LAGENORHYNCHUS CRUCIGER (d’Orbigny et Gervais).
Delphinus cruciger, @Orbvigny et Gervais, Voyage dans ’Amér. mérid., Iv, pt. 2,
kek R/S 05 SLR Oe IPL Sorat cies, tle
Lagenorhynchus clanculus, Gray, Proc. Zool, Soc., London, 1849, 1.
Electra clancula, Gray, Synopsis, 1868, p. 7, pl. 35; Malm, Sven. Akad. Handl., n.
f-5 1X, 11, 1870p: 68:
? Delphinus cruciger, Quoy et Gaimard, Zool. Voy. Uranie et Physicienne, 1824, PI.
XII, figs.
aA.
(Fide Gray.)
The skulls which I refer to this specimen are the following:
Paris Museum, No. a3045, labeled ZL. eruciger, VOrbigny, 1830 (type).
Paris Museum, No. a3041, labeled L. latifrons, New Zealand.
British Museum, No, 935a, type of L. claneula, Gray.
Royal College of Surgeons, No. 3027, labeled L. clanculus.
If the skull in the Paris Museum, No. a3045, labeled “ d’Orbigny,
1830,” is that which d’Orbigny figured in the “ Voyage dans P Amérique
LAGENORHYNCHUS CRUCIGER. 91
méridionale,” under the name of Delphinus cruciger (and after close ex-
amination I find no reason to believe otherwise), there can be no doubt
that this species is the same as the ZL. clanculus of Gray, described in
1849.
With these skulls must also be associated two other specimens, No.
a3041, of the Paris Museum, labeled JZ. latifrons (a name which I have
been unable to find in the literature), and No. 3027, of the Royal College
of Surgeons.
In all these specimens the “triangle” is more or less elevated, and is flat
and slightly or not at all rugose. The intermaxille are flat and nearly
horizontal, and are not twisted into a vertical position at the distal ex-
tremity. The temporal fossxe are full ovais in the Paris specimens,
but in the type of L. clanculus the anterior side is straight, so that the
fosse present the appearance of half ovals. The pterygoids are short
but wide; they touch the median line. The normal dental formula is
probably =-=, though the teeth in the specimens themselves present
the variaticus in number common to all the toothed whales.
It has been the fashion, since the time of F. Cuvier at least, to seri-
ously consider the identity of the D. cruciger of Quoy and Gaimard and
the D. bivittatus of Lesson, species which were ‘‘vus en mer et dessinés
a. distance.” D’Orbigny fell into this error (though hesitatingly) in
adopting Quoy and Gaimard’s name for the animal which he captured
and of which he sent the skull to Paris. He thereby produced confusion
in the nomenclature. The misstep of the French explorers was not that
they made drawings of animals which they only saw at a distance, but
that they introduced them into their narrative under special scientific
names. Considering that such names have no validity, I hold that
@VOrbigny and Gervais’s binomial is the proper one to apply to the
species in question.
It is not to be denied, however, that much interest frequently attaches
to such representations as have been referred to.
Malm, in his account of the specimens of Cetaceans in the Swedish
- Museums* describes a skeleton and skin of this species obtained by
Captain Warngre at Cape Horn.
The skull is a little smaller than that of the type of L. cruciger, but
agrees with it perfectiy in proportions (see table below). The vertebral
formula is as follows: C.7; D.13; L. 22; Ca. 29; total 71. Fora fall
account of this individual the reader is referred to Malm’s original
article.
*A. W. Malm, K. Svenska Vetens.-Akad. Handl., ny folid., 1x, pt. 1, 1870, p. 63.
92 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
Table of measurements.
LAGENORHYNCHUS CRUCIGER.
at |
Breadth of | 8 is
beak— g ES
See $5
> eb lees
H Ss ES rehome
5 : : ‘ : a) f+ | oak
5 Collection. Type of— Locality. i ous s° |) 325
= : O) | BS yon | SOs eye
A a) ees | See eae
S) e Ep oa ot | s a) d
=| a J Ss ar = oes =
Ep rd) |) © cd oa 8 | sae) aes
as) g , = 4 n = Shoe
E pall ces peavaalbeeea) | =0Nil ca ales
eI is ° o | + 2 2 Om
1S) 72) A 4 4 <4 a) o
} Om | Om.| Cm | Om. | Cm Cm.
CRAB GET EG GMSSRUR INTO | enna? | eceasooceses||eer B4.9) (eli Sell) GSO eacnl 8.7
nat. d’Orb. &
Gerv. | |
0850 @ "Brit. Mushe2e nul Ds clanenlys, |\1s-sees-cnee loess 34.90) 176 | 10r4 | Gnd) =8a385! “T58
| Gray. | |
a SOLT S| SMenis!s MOUMIsty ieee Seeee wees deere cece tle 3459) |) 18833) 21057 5.6 3.4 8.1
nat. |
3027) eR aColis aneyecd |saseen een saenee Ieeporeseieco| beadleeaene PASS74) 10.46 |. C505) Bee, or, 9
Stockholm Mus -| (From Malm) -| Cape Horn}....| 33.8 | 17.8 | 10.5 |......|......]....----
| | |
> A Eesti aT ce oar ta eens ay REST
3 Extremity | Breadth | Temporal 2 ie a
a ot beak to—| between— fosse. | g cS Sg
I = = a oe oy oa) ‘©! = Ss
oH 3 | aa | ° ° Sane
BS ee ey tee Bali 4) teem Nee as
AD 5 rey . 7) | . S t “US a
nH ect no a he | 2) fe) Ee Fala = oO :
) D Seo lie kez sei =o | a2 & | of Ee |
a |.3 )23 ) ae) & ce Ue ese este cog a
5 nad eS =e og 8 | 8&3 | Ss] ou/S 2
=} — ae a eo a =| SS ~~ é 6 cpa aad
A = 4 Bu a =% = te 5 x
A = |g2 "8 BS FE See eer lle a
Ee 5 5 Seer OS a : 3 = ee Oo es i
2 es |= | pels aie = Be == ae se Rp halle
Ee tp rey oF eas & | Zo ££ ~ oh | tn of <= =| S
$4 =) oF = =] a) ee = i) =| =| a = ro
ce co) Cs} A a ial beri oO oO o oO y ® mm =
6) eS q |8 o | 4 ) | 4 a A A
Cm. | Cm | Om. | Cm. | Gm. | Gm. | Om. | Om. | Cm. | Cm.| Cm. | Cm.
| | | 92.9
a3045 | 15.2| 3.3 | 22.1 | 224] 17.1]16.3) 6.9) 41/282) 35 ]...... 6.6 i 21
| | } 25—27
935 5 9 | 99 9 1 ex 9 = 99| § 80—30
35a 15 BAG 2 O22 6s) Aiea 1622 6.9} 3.4 | 29 Shara) Hibs ts} 7.1 |0. 23 2 3029
| € =5 |
@3041 | 15.2] 4.1} 22:9) 23.1 | 17.6 | 16.3 Top! 42 28. | SHO) leogocc 6.9 i 4
| 5 iis
3027 | 160 Bh. rr yeu be 2) Ceree Peeeme 29.1 | 3.8] 162] 66 ; —-
—32
Mes Ayecnee|| soesen||seccuellosonsaexcoalleesouc|o>seeoe|aoccc: Pohl ole ers = Piel | wmereeiad | een ege yen ==
32—33
LAGENORHYNCHUS SUPERCILIOSUS Schlegel.
Delphinus superciliosus, Schlegel, Abhandl. in der Geb. Zool., Heft 1, 1841, p. 22, Pls.
I-11, fig. 3 (skull), fig. 4 (teeth).
Schlegel (1. ¢.) identifies a skeleton sent to the Leyden Museum by
Van Horstok from the Cape of Good Hope with the D. superciliosus of
Lesson and Garnot, though for what reason does not appear. I found
no specimens of the latter species in the Paris Museum, and from the
remarks of F. Cuvier (Nat. Hist. des Cétacés, pp. 148, 149) I am led
to believe that none were brought home by Lesson and Garnot. Re-
ee a
LAGENORHYNCHUS SUPERCILIOSUS. 93
garding the skeleton in question, Schlegel makes the following state-
meuts :
That this species (D. superciliosus), moreover, occurs off the Cape of Good Hope ap-
pears from the observations of our late explorer, Dr. Van Horstok, who has sent us a
complete skeleton of the species. *
What the observations of Van Horstok were does not appear. They
seem to have been such as to convince Schlegel that his skeleton be-
longed to Lesson and Garnot’s D. superciliosus.
The following isa description of this skeleton: No. 40; Voy. Horstok ;
Cape of Good Hope. Vertebre: C.7; D.13; L. and Ca., 53; total, 73.
Lumbars twenty. Chevrons twenty. Only the atlas and axis united.
Superior transverse process of the seventh cervical vertebra long;
the others rudimentary. Inferior transverse process of the sixth cervi-
cal rather long; of the fifth shorter; of the other cervicals, rudimen-
tary. Neural spines of the third to the seventh cervicals very short.
Neural spine of the first dorsal pointed; the succeeding ones increase
in breadth backward to the tenth or eleventh dorsal, then again de-
crease. Those of the lumbars subequal. Neural arch obsolete on the
sixtieth vertebra. Transverse process obsolete on the fifty-fifth verte-
bra. First six ribs with heads; these ribs also join the sternum.
Sternum of four segments; the first largest, the last rather rudimentary.
Acromion long and broad, reaching to the anterior angle of the scapula;
coracoid about one-half the iength of the acromion, broadened at the
extremity. Radius and ulna straight. Carpals five; three large ones
in the distal row, two smaller ones in the proximal row. (Manus de-
fective.)
Skull.—The skull resembles that of P. obscurus, but the intermaxillz
are more nearly flat. The prenarial triangle extends about an equal
distance before and back of the maxillary notch, and is depressed, but
flat and not rugose. The sides of the intermaxille bordering the nasal
aperture are beveled as in Cephalorhynchus. The maxille are but little
bent. A wide opening (1° at the widest point) intervenes between
the premaxille and extends along the entire beak. Palate very flat.
Pterygoids on a wide base (4.1); they are broken, but were appar-
ently in contact, except at the tip. The ramus of the mandible is slen-
der toward the symphysis, which is not strongly keeled. Teeth, 3.
Scapula, 15.5 long; 9.8" high. Highest neural arch, 8.4". Total
length of the skeleton as mounted, 153°",
The chief peculiarities of the skull of this species are the flatness of
the premaxille and the beveling of their proximal extremities. In these
respects it is very different from that of P. obscurus, with which it agrees
well in proportions. On account of the flatness of the intermaxillz and
the crowding of the foramina at the symphysis of the mandible, I am
inclined to place this species in the genus Lagenorhunchus. The small
*Schlegel, Abhandlungen, Heft 1, 1841, p. 22.
94 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
number of vertebra, however, and the comparative shortness of the
trausverse processes, are more characteristic of Prodelphinus.
In addition to the type at Leyden, 1 observed at Louvain a skull
and a beak which appeared to belong to this species. These I did not
have an opportunity to examine closely. While resembling P. obscurus,
however, in general appearance, they differ in having flat premaxille.
In the complete skull the pterygoids appear to be separate, a character
the importance of which is strongly insisted upon by Professor Flower.
The beak was purchased from a dealer, and possibly came from Africa.
Table of measurements.
LAGENORHYNCHUS SUPERCILIOSUS.
| .| A
Breadth of | © 25
beak— 2 a-|
——|5 | 38
bB A 4d nae.
: cates
. of oO .
H i a tea
3 = Beall See
| Collection. Type of— Locality. 4 | a f° | aaa
= Cars “> i?)
5 Bo} fo |e | See |e | OS |
i=} ° aS 7 | =e
Eb rot -) OF q Ae Cae
oS = = a nm ‘~ o &
= = io] Nn ro pasa
= a a yi) a ~ me ate
£ v 2 a ce 8 BS
a (a) — oO ~~ ~ et = O'R
iS) 7) tery) TS) is 4 fQ oO
= re fae 2 — |
| Om. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. Om.
40 | M. Pays-Bas*.| L. superciliosus | Cape of Good |....| 35.6 | 19.4 | eee) yeh) BEY 6.9
Schlegel. Hope.
| H
=< ——— — ~- _ SS oo a a SS SS Se — == =— —— = — j
ae | a Sua | a |e rs
| Extremity | Breadth | Temporal | ie iS 3 |
Weage H Z oo 3 ;
3 (of beak to—| betweeua— fosse. | I Ss | fe
cid ee SRT Sug) oedne
Realy seen lle S 2 |e lasers
. a od i o 2 | Ee Serna ary
5 = |@3\)aa|3 nf zy lo 2) 8
ee ait cee, ERS be az a eal are ted eel Way eee a
g cS: A aa Se “Ey z 3 a= ~ 2 o Fe os —
5 3S go, | aq | o So a Epes Oe MOS e |! Sr $
=] ° So — bs Feo} Gar 2} = | (Esl mases, a a ~
oe a om lei a's A a 3 28 2) oe
© we | a4 Sal eat cy Rk PS tra Paras lites tal dey ; °
# ° ° a Ss of ee Om AO | ° cee Wes a
fo) ~ = 4 | ey = DD
Sh Sees a aS ce (ese Mes wees SS ice cee gl ena nee 3
i of oe) oF = Gos) on = on ty mh |e 8 q
SE a a + io} i) ae |)a a q a A eat 3 5
co | oO a | A =| a ea) 5) o | & ey | © Ba} i
Of 2 lee bat le 6 | Bo. ao See a Se A A |
edt Vom : | eee ‘ | ae iro pe Ca et
! | lis we | |
| Om. | Gm. | Gm. | Om. | Om. | Cin. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. Om. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. |
| « ‘ « ar) « | 5 | ‘ 30—30
0. AGS) 36: 22! Bangs bae | tJoA30"! <6e8i|), Anbu ese Here Beet 16: OuleOo3) ieee eee
| | | | U 99—29
| | | |
|
LAGENORHYNCHUS ALBIROSTRIS Gray.
Lagenorhynchus albirostris, Gray, Anu. & Mag. Nat. Hist., xvur, 1846, p. 84.
There is, fortunately, no obscurity surrounding this species. Gray
correctly characterized Brightwell’s specimen as the type of a new
species of the genus Lagenorhynchus, and since that time its distinet-
ness has not been questioned.
The most closely allied species is Z. acutus, from which it is dis-
LAGENORHYNCHUS ALBIROSTRIS.
95
tinguished by its color-markings and their disposition, as well as by nu-
merous skeletal characters.
Biightwell’s specimen, the type of the species, is in the Norwich
Museum, where 1 had the privilege of examining and measuring’ it.
{t is not an old individual.
Table of measurements.
LAGENORHYNCHUS ALBIROSTRIS.
.|3 A
Breadth of | © ome
beak— 8 Eas
e eae
a & Be is
2 - | Go| oo
_ Sn
| Collection. Type of— Locality. a | Sa Sol pester lecoeekc
5 O Hl) SS Eo 2) 12 hog
a 2 a 2 a = wo | Bae
| 2 HD | a elie |
o a | SH on Ss = 5
= =, a © og g zeal al 35 Ae
bo ei 4 i|2 is oe
As; a aa ~ | n cs ow oO
EI S to | 2 at PS a 8
= abel) 355 Bl hes ~ 2 oS
iS) a| a H | 4 414 Oo
| i
| |
Cm.| Cm.| Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Om
555¢e | Cambridge Mus 5 44-1) | 521.59) | 14S) oes eeee nee
555 ST edoenses sac > =a ZO QT AON Tied erat ee
3028 | R.Coll.Surg.... ---| 43.0 | 21.2) 14.6] 7.9 | 4.4] 10:4
n.n. | Norwich Mus ..| Z. albirestris..| Yarmouth ..| Ad.| 45.7 | 21.6 |*13.5 | 8.4] 5.1 10.9
016¢) | BritaMillstoecee sh |leciccas sents se sea Cromer. ....||..-.| 44.5) 2159 1 1426 8.4 | 2.0 10.7
OVE) |\Seend Ole eeneeren ltecesecis ce sss cee|.cnces eaeecce | 43.9 | 20.3 | 14.0) 8.0) 5.5 10.9
Helen | MOORS ele cians | Pemeterer esta (a\a\cfo «,c\|\ Bl 46.0) |) 22590) Ta 2ai) Seite eonele meal Ol)
Edinburgh. ¢ | |
=y 4 ee : ro)
re Extremity | Breadth | Temporal Ve sol a a
3 of beak to—| between— __fossee. |g ra
ae Sle eee
| |
Ps} zs) 2 S | py | S ay hae E af
: on R | ; eh oa 5 =)
Hy A no aa S | 3) | 2 Bs). =| S 5
2 cy SS |/-Ao} pA eos | Sesh || oe S c=
2 a mae oh Fad | A a | | Ss fei! as | 8 a =
g a Alaa | y | “Ee.S sty | eS | Se SS ®
5 S SVS iGo = (il ee Wasa | = ks! |! ise! |) Ese aay
5 = Ps BH) q | Bs | ee | qt n a SE oe
3 | 2° = | oH Hs 5
Cemnem ee | S| Sil. 1S | ceelivoamae =
ee eee es ah ea Wee leg leet eae a eae 3
| is lls Obey = | so! op = op ee f= g
~ A nD =I ; 2 ‘> qe i a al a a a | 2a 5
oS o os A = | est | o Y o | @ Do YL pF.
S) 4 4 i | Or A a) 4 4 4 A A
: —_— (Se =
Cm. | Om. | Cm. | Om. | Cm. | Cm | Om. | Cm. | Cm.| Cm.| Cm. |; Cm 2626
BING | sab G6llesagee) Beeene Sears 220 GN UBeta | ear ates |eonerd|/tscaed||Sscoce|)/coosccliseonde ; 2697
| 26—2
- } es § 2W—24
SED? || SeosSe) Sepeee| Heeore Serco les ae) | 1830) | oscceies css |Seasee| nas nae|Socees||seniene 09728
| | E ( 24—
B02 HelSa7) | (8.8) | 28.2) 28.2) | 23o1 W771) LOL 650)|| S550 4 4 Weeds 8e5 293
| 26—
Ti MI Saescr Seca coos leassoc PPC | epee OSDslmaauee SOnGR|e Ole leanne cence =
28—27
QGes |) 2263, |e sa9h 2890 ease 23.1 | 18.9; 8.3) 4:58 [ocenee|see eee |oee eee [ene eee a?
Ge weeps | EET) PREM SER Ge eB ot aie 2 eae 8 —
9 : ; 5 28: 23. 19. | 9. eas 4,6 | 18.0 mele 27—25 (+2)
Tig apa baa eee oe aah [eae De aN OCs NRL Ak ae lle rl eel EE kee eee crac
| | |
* Least j Collected by Traill.
J6 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM
LAGENORHYNCHUS OBLIQUIDENS Gill.
Lagenorhynchus obliquidens, Gill, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1865, p. 177.
? Delphinus longidens, Cope, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1866, p. 295.
? Clymenia longidens, Dall, Scammon’s Marine Mammalia, 1874, p. 288.
? Clymenia similis, Gray, Proc. Zool. Suc. London, 1863, p. 147.
This species is unquestionably valid, although closely related to Z.
acutus, Gray, and to L. eruciger, VOrbigny. It would appear to be
absolutely larger than the latter, judged by the skull, and more robust
though not longer than the former. The National Museum is at pres-
ent in possession of four adult skulls of Dr. Gill’s species, and two
entire skeletons, representing, respectively, an adult and arather young
individual. On comparing one of the adult skulls with a similar one
from the large series of Z. acutus in the Museum numerous differ-
ences become apparent. The margins of the rostrum in ZL. obliqui-
dens converge very gradually from a point about an inch anterior
to the notch to a point about the same distance from the tip. The
outline of the rostrum does not suggest a triangle, therefore, as in L.
acutus, but rather a rectangle, of which the anterior corners are rounded
off. The surface of the intermaxillz is more convex in L. obliquidens
than in DZ. acutus, and the prenarial triangle is more elevated and ex-
tends further upon the rostrum. The orbits are much further apart in
LT. acutus, owing to the great expansion of the proximal half of the
maxille. Viewed from the side, the skulls of the two species are strik-
ingly different owing to the large size, quadrate form, and the posterior
and superior extension of the temporal fossxe of ZL. obliquidens. The
biting-power of this species must be much greater than that of Z.
acutus, not only on this account but because the teeth are larger and
more deeply implanted in the alveoli. In both species the roots of the
teeth are abruptly turned backward at their extremity, a character
which is common in this genus.
The inferior surfaces of the skulls present many differences, bnt these
are difficult to express on account of the complexity of the parts. The
pterygoids are the least beli-shaped in Z. acutus and extend much
farther back than in Z. obliquidens. The shape of their free margin
and the extent of contact in the median line is widely different in these
two skulls, but this is a character which is subject to much variation.
In proportions of parts the skulls of acutus and obliquidens show no
consonance. The distance from the maxillary notch to the anterior
end of the temporal fossa exceeds the width of the beak at the notch
in acutus, but is less than the latter width in obliquidens. The breadth
across the proximal end of the right maxilla from the lateral free margin
to the superior nares equals the width of the beak at the notch in acu-
tus, but the former only equals three-fourths the latter in obliquidens.
The length of the free border of the malar only exceeds by. a little more
than one-half the length of the orbit in obliquidens, while in acutus the
LAGENORHYNCHUS OBLIQUIDENS. 97
two are very nearly equal in length. The premaxille scarcely form
any part of the palate in obliquidens, but appear in nearly the whole of
its distal half in acutus.
There are numerous other differences of proportions in the skulls
which are equally striking. Taken together they form a sufficient basis
for specific distinction.
The numerical relations of parts in the skeletons also offer characters
for discrimination. The number of vertebre in specimens of L. obliqui-
dens, L, acutus, and L. albirostris, are as follows:
Collection. Species. CaR0: L. Ca. Total.
U.S.N.M_| Z. ebliquidens (n.n. adult) - Ue Meals? 24 30 74
U.S.N.M.| Z. obliquidens (14829, Juv.) 7 | 13 | 23(or 24) | 32 (or 31) 75
L. acutus (Poelman) ..--..-- 7 | 15 | 19 39 80
| ee
UCR SES Voy Ulieraetria! (BODE) esr x. oS lees See selec: 7| 14 | 67 88
The last-named species clearly hasmany more vertebre than L. acutus,
while DL. obliquidens has fewer. | & | 38] eFa,
S Ete Re ~~ | SH] nm |g £5
2 ir lee Be es), (cea tees eos
a ; ° o |+# > |e 26e
5 Ic Petes | Gea load = ed bes lice
| Cm.| Cm. | Cm. | Om.| Cm.| Om.
358a | Brit. Mus........ IBRC EO (Cad nN pyaeeicon| SAECoAaee eae 42.5 | 23.0 | 12.6 8.0 5. 35 9.1
LOS GY al beeect (Nise soeercemee I, electra, Gray ....| _.-=----|.--.| 45.7 | 24.35} 13.95) 9.2 | 6.1 | 9.7
Te U(S7R\) ORC Oeasaaneenaesone D. fusiformis Owen) India ..| 9 | 44.5 | 24.4113.7|9.1] 5.5) 9.2
aplddash Mins delist. NUt..| 2oc.sscees=s-2- 52 «= | Hawaii.|....| 45.8 | 24.9 |*13.2 | 8.7] 5.6 | 8.2
PAE eoell) Saceme S3ee sn || esas oneengedeossan4) |Saoes Seon ane | 45.8 | 24.9 |*13.5 | 9.4] 61] 10.4
HINO UMbLUrOsMirgs. |keaseerees yas cousaacc|Seaecee creas | 44.8 | 24.0; 15.6 {10.3} 5.8) 10.2
SUPE || Re OU EST a2) SS all SOS ae Ree eee ee cee! errata eee 47,2 | 25.7 | 1330/) 8.2) 5.7 9.6
ALOR AG S-Nate ius. | DSpectonais Peale.) Hawait.|) 22 4)sees=- |e 5) cess =| sees) seman alas eee
= ; 1 = | = Fhai (ae = aes Seay ;
a Extremity | Breadth |Temporal S a a a
= |ofbeakto--| between— | fosse. A A S =
Rh | hoa os aes r) “e py] =
a SLE A ea lees o we ae || <5
H = aa}°.|8 Wess 2 B ° S2|o :
Y a PSS seer | e | n® rs Mayall in ae eee een a
i) = SS OuWseneialaecs | 22 | A |) el)/s2) ee) & 3
Sp eerie ec (caia | © sce Fp este eae a le g
a estea see. | ee | eo jag es acted RAE alec =
2 | & | 38] ee | se Peas SAS oe eee ee x
i ¢ . oe = 5 fo} ~
2 S = BS | ce at SN) eye |) Gey a 3 ye) | as 2 3
rs on eo os | ° a= | L=i=| on v=) on | ep ; oO + S| =|
= a Q ha\c 2 | ae a a a A = 3 =
3 co) GI A | 4 Bo | sete co) L e a ° 2 = Nes
io) H H | q ica) Oo | H A 4 4 - A A A
ath IES | 35 eae ns a < : = pane é
1 | | | } |
| Cm.| Cm. | Gm. | Gm. | Cm. | Om. | Cm.| Cm.) Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Om.
ier ee S| (sel , G z §23(+3)-23(+3)
358a@ | 17.0 | 6.9 |28.65 | 29.2 | 22.6 | 15.75) 7.5 | 6.35] 34.65) 3.8 | 16.4 8. 15/0. 46 Seen en a
‘ ba Re | \¢ 25-95
BER Ye) Ua BEAR} GG) Tl earrane 25.2 | 16.3 | 9.4 | 5.5 | 37.1 4.3 | 16.8] 6.1 0. 41/5 99294
| | | | penne |
14750} 16.6 | 9.2 |30.7 | 31.5 | 24.21158|8.5|5.6| 362] 3.6|...... 8.5.|0.41)) ony
| 22-99
| as04t| 17.6) 8.2 [30.5 | 31.9] 23.61 17.5| 8115.6 | 37.4) 41 ]......|----- ee ae
gas? |) 18/0. |" 7. 9:(30, 54-192, 5 | 24.9°18.0'1.9,9 156.6, | aoc |beeece| see ee- lucene jp Sees
5550 | 17.5 29.6 30.1! 26.0 18.41 9.6/5.8 3.2 ogee
JIOG | 1/.0 |------ r4 | a0. j ROse | JeO | VEG) | cerns &@ | cccee| -cuees - ? 19-19
| | | | § 23-22
3024 | 17.7 LAS Yal eee jolet | 2404)) Wd 952) 6.4 | 3854 3:6.) 17.0 | 9:2 =) near
| | j H & 23--24
| | 92292?
CE (en ee eae lee (eas Baltes | 36. 6)| B.8)L0E 3/8 jee ee Eee
* Least. t From Peale.
104 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
LAGENORHYNCHUS OBSCURUS (Gray).
Delphinus obscurus, Gray, Spic. Zool., 1828, p.2; Zool. Ere. & Terr., 1846, p. 37,
pl.16; Catalogue of Cetacea, 1st ed., 1850, p. 107.
Tursio obscurus, Gray, Catalogue, 2d ed., 1866, pp. 264 and 400.
Clymenia obscura, Gray, Proc. Zool. Soc., London, 1866, p. 215; ditto, 1868, p. 147,
fig. 1 (pterygoid bones) ; synopsis, 1868, p. 6, pl. 16; supplement, 1871, p. 71, fig.
3 (pterygoid bones) ; Flower, Proc. Zool. Soc., London, 1883, p. 512.
? Phocena australis, Peale, U.S. Explor. Exped., Ist ed., 1848, p. 33, pl. 6, fig. 2.
This species was originally described by Gray from a stuffed skin, but
he afterwards included in the species a number of skulls in the British
Museum. That the latter were properly referred to the species appears
to have been confirmed by Professor Flower upon removing the skull
from the type-skin in 1884. (See his List, p. 28.)
It has been customary among authors since 1868 to refer this spe-
cies to Clymenia (=Prodelphinus). In the Catalogue, however, Gray,
although referring the species to Tursio, makes the remark that ‘the
skull of this species is intermediate between the Lagenorhynchus and
Delphinus” (Catalogue Seals and Whales, p. 265). After going over
the data many times it seems to me that it should properly be referred
to the former genus. There is nothing in the characters of the skull
that would militate against this view, and certain considerations re-
garding the exterior seem to confirm it.
First, the form of the head in the type specimen is unlike that of
any species of Prodelphinus of which the exterior is known. There is
no real beak, but on the contrary the head slopes gradually from the
blowhcle to the extremity, as in Lagenorhynchus acutus.
Again, the color seems rather that of a Lagenorhynchus than of a Pro-
delphinus. Gray’s original description contains the following data re-
garding the color of the body:
Collo ventreque albidis, fascea nigra ab angulo oris usque ad primas pectorales;
striga obliqua laterali, alba postica; cxterum totus niger.
In a young specimen in the same collection the colors are more defined; but even
in the older specimens the lateral streaks are to be seen in certain positions—a fact
which is not shown in the drawing. (Spic. Zool., p. 2.)
The figure of the young individual is not unlike Waterhouse’s figure
of L. Fitzroyi (Zool. Beagle, pl. 10), which species, indeed, Gray made
synonymous with obscura. Thovgh somewhat generalized, the figure
in question, as also that of the older individual on the same plate of the
Spicilegia (Pl. u, fig. 3), is certainly unlike any Prodelphinus we know.
The dimensions of the adult type-skin are as follows (measured in
straight lines): Total length, 65 inches; tip of snout to corner of
mouth, 8.7 inches; to eye, 10 inches; to blowhole, 9.5 inches; to ante-
rior base of pectoral fin, 16.5 inches; to anterior base of dorsal fin (fol-
lowing the curves), 31.75 inches; length of the dorsal fin, 9 inches;
vertical height of dorsal fin, 7.5 inches; length of pectoral fin, 11 inches;
greatest breadth of pectoral fin, 3.5 inches; breadth of caudal fins,
15.75 inches.
105
OBSCURUS
LAGENORHYNCHUS
Table of measurements.
LAGENORHYNCHUS OBSCURUS.
AiamiepAeI S| per ie ae Ale Tec Say oe Se
-XVULIOJUL JO SULS1VUT 19}N0 Sie tS oct oy ales : a | 13 ef baie ciale
ee A oh Be + ro: 1399} Jo aquinyy RG a estes ATE
UvAJOd [pvoiq 4s89}vI1h) ' ' gS IS AIS em AN lS
: ia : Go 133 | los Sa 'c> co | alee os les
= . x AN Oe Oo aes ore
“yroq Jo o[pprur Se aee. ona a 4 ; a fo ee
qe ayxvuioyar jo Typeag | OF } ' 900} 4soD51R] Jo ToJomerq | S ' =e a ‘ ‘ '
- = — * = |
ro re ek Sk eo Ane ‘ssao0id prouor09 SRC SPO ah iat aN HS on oo
2h Mh QIPPIM SIV | Soi wes 6 pus o[suvs usemjoq yideq | O SF * © H Wee
ea | = £ : ~ We et SS =
Sie | aan : :
22 “soyojou ea are zs ‘8TqIp sp a eat re hT Ne Dace! DP ay ete
Fc fivyprxem joeseqgy | OF: Mae P & Aone AK) IW cra (KL a) waksheeyay || tS) SS SS
; Ent mak oo & -eTqIp este RC) : nee Ia
qeoq jo msueT | Sa: gas Ss & |\-uvmjoss{yduks yoqsuey; 6 7 4 N ‘ Hey phil
3 so ‘ ON noo ee is LOM CT) Mice Sy» te) fh fooh fol
"W}oug] [eyo Ss i woe 6 ‘eTqIpavur Jo Yous Ses ; ; ; i ; ;
Me VOL ROS AS Rott Me Shes os. 8 eu a Wiow eee oC ay the tee oe
Gnu puuxOgde saa oki ser) ||| td anh Bae oe iba Tongs Allie
1 S| Wot ‘ ‘ As yidoq So tv eo) 1 ot
ae ‘ee Te Tad a5 ' ’
Bae ee oem RH
ATA arte At a oe : UHL as cel sa es eek Moe
2 ts ‘DO! = qjoue'y ae ‘ Ss or Oy teh ess
=] Hen is erreur | : :
a Hees sae itaits :
FS Hoyo Hiel te ue at =} || ‘essoy [erode 3 Nn IG Pr o 8
PS bi GB os 4 | 2B | jo suisavar sapury See Bile Sch esses ee uce
te ee ' ' | ao u = :
heeG te 8 ' : || OF 5
th 1O ' ‘ || ee 1S 3s ‘ rc ~ oo a in
ees ————— se 5 —|| Ae *SJIQIO 5 1S ' + oS 19 is} Ve)
SER ARMe stig a = es} Te eo ape e
coy hers ‘ r z =
all ie acigieng: oul iabag “pros ap aa ieNy cg bee be te Ae ue
=a Be UO ste at ‘Bz, | Saad Jo ysoro jo pug | OG ' ' ' 1 ost 6s
(= oi ro 4 : 6 q Gs} | 7 = ; 5 = a
ee Ded | a. Cy oie ee) | ‘souvu aotodns lie ek oes eye t es
Pete stipe re ci lllugics( Hm a copunre es! coogi ce) 0<2)'+ lla kOe -
ow ~ a . al
a Go| ee | ees gee etl Mae | Se eee ccs
o oo on ee wD mo og 2g Q
5 ai |) & SS see hall Se aes
B, =| 2 i ee) =| aa |
a | p= ~ oO —
o ae = ~ a al n ey wOn
2 lees Bo is = |ea| ges
2
= A eRe: o » + x HOA
o no) A 4 <4 <{ ies) o
iP = = FE {aa == 7
F
le Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Cm. On.
3887 | U.S. Nat. Mus: iS: aanblodon*=.| 22.22.06. 050% Spec cor) aleh ORCS Tees I Bee 168)
|
= = = = ——— ; — = =~ = === — = — == 5 7 —=
v Extremity Breadth | Temporal } ey ah S
& of beak to—} between— fossx. a
| D |
a 2 > H
é |x ar ee eee (es ees
See leret lo eae 3 | SH es (ee eales
= > A — | eral eee =| :
3 ee | a Sy) feb =F | n® | 22) ao re | & g I a
o lees am ices Oa ree am | = —2 SS) fl Vere eee ee
=| | Ol | Sees | Sn | =| =) eis ns oo od
=) o) Be] oa Os | "5.9 od BS Ps} US he oa) o
= S Oo | eae Pea} a] n = Ors | 2 =
q = pr a Bon H Ss q =e) Eb oo
eS RE aay atten ees: Sz : Sa SP eaieei escent 3
fas} o 2s aS H 2 els 3 i) | ° g te] A 2
= 3) - i. a
EH xe Sheetal (een lear : He =| ° a a a Seales ®
~ oe Ha iS) n or ~ q = ~ — ao | @ 2
ra ee | 45 o> | 35 re) SI 60 = 60 &0 a0 2Oo] a |
SOS een capensis We ie ee
~ ws al Vieree . Qa
S) | 4 i) Oe SiRF = al a3 A | 4 A A A
pee el ee af lees aoc oe Box. 2 Pe | a
Om. | Om. | Om. |Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Cm. | Gm. | Cm. | Om. | Cm om.
i7/ Or - » a 9 « S219)
S887 15.7 | 4205] 2259) | oul 1G: 7 ae1Gs4 |i Tao) mole io Osler sate elders eG. Oi pees pe 82
| | | 31—32
|
*Caught at sea. United States Exploring Expedition.
FERESA INTERMEDIA. 107
9. FERESA Gray.
Feresu, Gray, Suppl. Cat. Seals and Whales, 1871, p. 78.
Feresia, Flower, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1833, p. 510.
The future development of our knowledge of this genus will be
watched with much interest by cetologists. At present there is noth-
ing to add to Gray’s original description, and no additional specimens
have been discovered.
I concur in Gray’s opinion that the two typical skulls are clearly
allied to Lagenorhynchus electra, and it may be found necessary event-
ually to include Feresa in that genus.
FERESA INTERMEDIA Gray.
Delphinus intermedius, Gray, Ann. Phil., 1827, p. 396.
Grampus intermedius, Gray, List of Mammalia, 1843, p. 106.
Orca intermedia, Gray, Zool. Ere. & Terr., 1846, p. 34, pl. 8; Catalogue of Cetacea,
Ist ed., 1850, p. 96; 2d ed., 1866, p. 283.
Feresa intermedia, Gray, Suppl. Cat. Seals and Whales, 1871, p. 78.
Feresia attenuata, Gray, Journal du Muséum Godeffroy, Heft vir, 1875.
IT append measurements of the two typical skulls deseribed by Gray,
and which Professor Flower very properly brings together under the
‘same specific name.
Table of measurements.
FERESA INTERMEDIA.
Breath of | 8 ag
2 = vo
beak— = 2s
Aw tee.
= aie ea eae
: ze he en!
H is] SD) 463
o & H2 g
RS) 24 = fe =
=| ‘ ; : csi ||fctelies - ao | oa A
=) Collection. Type of— Locality. 4 2 v a 2 © Gala tein
q is ™ oO a p=) a = on! CHA
co] Soph ee a Sj Al rapes eat Se
s a =) ° or 1 ZS = B88
on — ® “a oo B|)48) ano
=| = n = VOD
) = = a n open |) =) ee
eS | a wb 1S 2 ae | ates
45 iA = a o os
oS 4) iS) o 5) * = Zod
'S) nm) a HK | 4 4 | A o
Cin. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Cm
362a | Brit. Mus ...| Orca intermedia |...-..---.--.--. Sods|| Bind || lige) | aPey) he) Gaal 9.1
l6W2on\P2=2dovs-—4-- F. attenuata ..-.| South seas.-..|--..| 35.0 | 16.8 | 10.7) 7.5) 5.2 Ort
a —_ ca a — —— - a . ; => - — — a ~ = =
4 | Extremity 3readth | Temporal | |S ‘sl = 4a
gS of beak to—-| between— fossie. D Ss S
: (6 pg PE ee ee
BH A | oals re Poke a | bP RER a)
SD = Chal eS) Ss = onary | elicy alee ri 5
2 - 4 Pe eee Teton does ny oS sles) a5 ED q
=| a so |—2 =) An 5 AS) | o.o I he ts >
5 5S | 2a} Ha | oa a | Sn | os | oe] s&
5 iS) ° tas) 9.9 = iret |) sa hcch || Sr || 2
[=| ~ pA ao eo Est iS a a bs SH
SS eS ace 2S ea |eseniess |) Ses [es |S =I
| Se Sear |) posal een Ag Su INES Bho a lea .
ty 4 A | Oe Si - a ; BA o
Z 4a |S" | 28 /e ton ES fe siege et ie
=] co a yl ess, i) Was Loie=| tL ee) to iS) to "9 =! g
= | D S| os 2 Ag | a a A a a a
a o ol | gd =i Relies o v 3 o co) 2 = 5
'S) HA 4 | oO |B = A HA H = a) A
ie eae = é = =A Ball ee ae =
| | |
Om. | Om. | Om.-| Gm. | Om. | Cm. \ Cm. | Om. | Gm. Om. | Cm. | Cm. W—11
BOL Ma PQs G21) |) 2246 |isa- ae Oa Gye SCH a GB yee RCM SBE MBG lh 4) scree ; 10—11
= i hoe hare ; 12—11
Oia | MOT sob 2201 22.9%) 20:1 | 1723) 8.4 Tad || 28500 ls soe 4 als Gn i) teeulO. ob BoD
| | | | 3—l2
H
|
108 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
10. CEPHALORHYNCHUS Gray.
Cephalorhynchus, Gray, Cat. Cetacea, Brit. Mus., 1850, p. 106.
? Cephalorhynques, F. Cuvier, Hist. Nat. des Cetacées, 1836, p. 156.
Eutropia, Gray, P. Z. 8., London, 1862, p. 145.
Lutropia, Gray, Synopsis of Whales and Dolphins, 1868, p. 7.
Although Gray credits the name Cephalorhynchus to F. Cuvier, it
was the former naturalist who first made a formal separation of the
species. Cuvier states, at the place cited:
Nous les aurions séparées des dauphins proprement dits sons Je nom de céphalorhyn-
ques, si ces différences extérieures [previously pointed out] eussent entrainé des dif-
férences intérieureg plus marquées. Un examen de ces especes plus approfondi que
celui que nous en avons pu faire déterminera peut-étre plus tard cette séparation.*
This aoristical genus includes representatives of four genera, the first
mentioned being D. rostratus, a species now referred to the genus Steno
If Cephalorhynchus were to be accepted upon the authority of Cuvier, it
would have to be applied, under the rules, to the species included in Steno.
Gray’s distinctions are quite vague, and he has included D. obscurus
in his subgenus, which is now referred to Lagenorhynchus. His first-
mentioned species, however, is ). Heavisidei. Furthermore, his defini-
tion of Cephalorhynchus is, as already stated, a formal one, and the
name itself is Latinized.
Professor Flower has left but little to be said regarding this genus
and the species included under it. More facts must be forthcoming be-
fore the species can be placed upon a satisfactory basis.
The principal cranial characters of the genus seem to me to lie in (1)
the separation of the pterygoids, (2) the great height of the nasal re-
gion, and (3) the expansion of the beak at the middle of its length.
The expansion of the beak causes the rami of the mandible to bow out.
As they are also bent downward toward the symplysis, the shape of
the jaw is quite peculiar and characteristic.
CEPHALORHYNCHUS HEAVISIDEI Gray.
Delphinus (Grampus) Heaviside’, Gray, Spic. Zool., 1828, p. 2, pl. u, fig. 6.
Delphinus (Cephatorhynchus) Heavisidei, Gray, Cat. Cetacea Brit. Mus., 1850, p. 107.
Delphinus capensis, F. Cuvier, Hist. Nat. des Mammireéres, liv. 58, 1829.
Delphinus cephalorhynchus, F. Cuvier, Hist. Nat. der Cetacées, 1836, p. 158.
D. hastatus, F. Cuvier, Hist. Nat. des Cetacées, 1836, p. 161.
Orca capensis, Van Beneden (nec Gray), Bull. Acad. R. Belg., 2d ser., XXXVI, 1873,
p. 32, 1 fig.
Professor Flower has summed up the facts relative to this species in
such a manner as to leave little for me to add. Lappend measurements
* This is a good example of what may be cailed gratuitous nomenclature. The au-
thor does not erect a name upon differences which he has discovered, but suggests
that in case valid distinctions are found in the future sneh and such an appellation
would be appropriate. Similar examples are frequent in zoological literature.
-CEPHALORHYNCHUS HEAVISIDEI. 109
of the skulls which I examined in the Oxford, Paris, and Leyden Mu-
seums, and also of the type skin of the species which is in the British
Museum. ‘The dimensions of this latter specimen are as follows:
Measurements of a mounted skin of Cephalorhynchus heavisidei (type), from the Cape
of Good Hope.
Meters
Mia rmip bee herein anor eon vee Os cule min Mees Seen Ae ae alee tear Rete ate apart 1. 092
Pxireminy of beak: to, commer of mouth yee ss ea aiesisie eee ecsee oo i-1o 0. 155
EESirenii by OF Veale tO) CV Cls a= ate tape rote ee ee iota mia oteeyal een p steele asa eee 0. 157
Hxiremitty: of beak to blowhole 225 sae sess cles leasevlecceies = sae sce ces =e 0.158
Extremity of beak to anterior base\of pectoral’. .-:...-. 2.2 5---- 2-22 22-2 -=-- 0. 267
Extremity of beak to anterior base of dorsal......---....--..--.-.---.------ 0.516
Wmenioth Os base.Of GQOLsal se sec sae ahaa eae eon emo see oe ea tiscchicm tate sae 0.178
Woerticaléherchtromd orsaltaseseetones oe bemoe ae spec occas dae cine cle foes sarc eee 0. 082
Henathviok pectoralstrom=the wnierlor ase sesees. sans] - =e sees = oa Seiece 0.145
IBIACEOb A ELC EAEI DNS ah Coon. oe cee BOMB Sens Boo) Bene On bee Sa Obaed HOBO Hae ube aeare 0. 247
Greatest width-of pectorals. 22 .no eee = sees icc donee ss -osee sienna sa OF 050
The beak is not sharply defined. The teeth are small and round.
At 5.1™ from the extremity of the mandible the distance between the
teeth of opposite sides is 4.6,
A east of the head of this specimen was recently received by the Na-
tional Museum through the liberality of Professor Flower.
Another stuffed skin isin the museum of Leyden. The form is very
similar to that of Phocena. The dorsal, however, is more sharply tri-
angular. The forehead is somewhat: concave (this may be due to dry-
ing). The color is black throughout, except a rather broad band of
white, which starts about 8°™ posterior to the dorsal fin and somewhat
below the middle of the side and runs obliquely downward, becoming
merged in a second white area which occupies the center of the belly.
Another similar but smaller band appears below and behind the first
and is also confluent with the white of the belly. This specimen is
presumably one of the “ mehrere volistiindige Hiiute” mentioned by
Schlegel in the Abhandlungen (p. 31) as received from the Cape of Good
Hope.
In one of the young skeletons at Leyden I find the vertebre two
more than the number given by Professor Flower. The formula, ae-
cording to my notes, is as follows: C. 7, D. 13, L. and Ca. 47 = 67.
This skeleton, as mounted, is 125° in length. The atlas and axis only
are united. The seventh cervical vertebra has a superior transverse
process like the transverse process of a dorsal. A superior trans-
verse process is present also in the sixth cervical, but it is not so large.
The transverse processes become obsolete at the forty-seventh vertebra,
the neural arches at the fiftieth vertebra. The lumbar neural spines are
sickle-shaped. The scapula is high, with a short, broad, and incurved
acromion; the coracoid abontequals theacromion in length and is broad-
ened distally. The scapula is 8,9°" high, 11.2°" long. The first six
110 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
pairs of ribs possess heads. The skull of this specimen shows that the
animal was quite young; the boundaries of the occipital elements are
plainly discernible.
The skull ‘*b” is also young and shows the outlines of the occipital
element. The intermaxille are very thick and high proximally and re-
mind me of those of Sagmatias amblodon. The hinder margins of the
temporal fossx are but faintly marked out in this and the preceding
skull.
The skeleton No. 1670a, at Oxford, isalso young. The palate is very
flat, the rami of the mandible are strongly bent outward, and the sym-
physis is very short. I counted the following vertebrae: ©. 7, D. 13,
L. and Ca. 45 = 65. The first six pairs of ribs are furnished with
heads and five pairs join the sternum. The scapula is $&™ high, 11.9°¢™
long. The humerus and radius together measures 9.7. The sternum
is 11.7 long and 6.3 wide in front. The atlas 11.9™ wide, 7.6™
deep. The carpels are five. The neural spines are narrow antero-pos-
teriorly and bend slightly forward in the lumbar region, in this respect
somewhat resembling those of Lagenorhynchus. Only the atlas and axis
are anited.
Table of measurements.
CEPHALORHYNCHUS HEAVISIDEI.
|e A!
Breadth | = os
of beak—) ae (a a=
a Sei
fm. | 28
bs ae | ae
5 = F2 jas.
2 |Site BS | So
3 Collection. Locality. “4 ahr £2 |\ 3 Be
3 : ES o r= Pome coal inate WS
a o irs} a wo lS les | ee6a
o | sh co H or Ss om 2 S
= a Re o Seales A |e
of a) 2 or] By ko le ee aes
aS 8 = ~ a mM 3 2S Lv.
a s BI SO ec lice ens
~ wv a= 8 : o esa
m ) — oO ~ r (a Of
é) wm | A Hy |4 4) A do}
x y Cm. | Om. | Cm. |Cm.| Om. | Cm.
xX. Mus. Pays-Bas.* .........| Cape G. Hope. ........ ----/°30.0 | 13.9 | 17.2)5.2) 3.1 5.2
IBY, Si ged do tice ees ec ell es alee ete ae ee 2525 {8000 4) 137 FR. Bs BoB eo 5.5
NGq0an Oxon da Mis sereserces aes ee eee seep eee Dia SOR 145. |) G57 4.6) 2s on lees
| s062a0) Muss GtHist. nate: t2-.0 son eet ames salsa =e iesee Seale tale achae |) Male WOsnalmecceer 5.1
3068a |.--.do Cape G. Hope-...-..--. se] 2857 A862") (659/481 2.8 5.3
3061a |....do Eclibeoogs snc saseebee ee Be far! etal feet (ta 7 Gal ay al Se te 5.1
| 38061a |....do -| Seas of N. Zealand. .-.-|.--.| 27.5 | 13.5] 63 |4.6] 2.0 4.8
| |
*From V. Horstok. t Least. _ t From the N. Zealand Inst.
CEPHALORHYNCHUS ALBIFRONS. 111
Table of measurements—Continued.
|
|
|
é : =
: | zg J
| eet Extremity | Breadth | Temporal | | 5 | iS A
3 lof beak to—| between— | fossa. | = ae ba S
| q = SH | 4 Os
ih: 35 | Ne om lira
poses lis | 3 | CaN cit Aes ag
: Ss o4 | H = Me 6 a8
es SS ae | lng | |) 2 | e.la. = :
2 3 2o | eo | & Zz | og Feet | stl! ey qi
Beloe a8 | oe lig 2 a | 62 |e | $s 5
eee a) baa os = a (2s | 83 | 25 | ei
A Be Sa dine eo =| rome te Sa aa
Oo & = i ie | =] oH G4 SH a0 S
eae ke) S$ ster |) tse ; Ss 285 | ok) iS) ° — =
It ijaieat [FRc] 6 Se hap | ‘ a=) reli | ; a a a | 3) gy
peices. eee oe se lca eterno a Mendel neate Pegi leas | a
s iota (eee 2) em pg Ie y= (oh mg fevoye el ger It 5
x x oo 5} R Ses 3 2 o o | @ o 5
oe || o4 = A Oo | = = Ho} mR |AR 4
ai I——| eam ay
| Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Om. | Om. | Om. | Gm. | Om. | Cm. | Cm
x LeeLee eG Miah} AS soe ols aa G han One Om cmos) eae ee eee ae \\nantoca|eioe oll set cal ee steers
| | | | _9
Heel “Pip arh2.8-1'16:8'| ton. WS Taty Bee AC a errata nea a One een Be ae Fe
| | | t 27-26
| | | | | | z | | 6 26—26
1670@ | 12.7 | ee seee- |) L206) (1359) (63° | 4.8 | 2304 ASB ee Soe 5.3 5 iG Te
| | eas,
| | 26—2
| Peder | | Eee § 29-28
OGM LOMO! |e eco) wll fared || LSs Oj eles O09) ashe dautine 1Ovebl [Dui mesylate Oe kl see te aa
| | | | | }@ 29—29
sa | le | ae Pappa ters Rome | 1¢ 26—26
3063@ | 11.4) 2.3 | 15.8 |...... 12:2' | 13.7 Gale Se 4sSele229N kaon Gees. Bids|eece 5g oe
| | } | | } 20—25
3061a | 12.7] 2.3 | 16.5 |...... | BE) TES all || EE PP SI] Tee hese 5.6: |-ccc ee eee
|
F S | A east al Nees e | 5 Keg =nog
3064a@ | 11.9} 2.0 | TGXON SL fecou |) elie lee (ih eiarare \Perermtereates toler eon tar ois etter te 458) |e ; 7
| | ae
CEPHALORHYNCHUS ALBIFRONS True.
Electra clancula Hector, Trans., New Zealand Inst., v, 1873, p. 160-162, pls. 1 and
3 (skull and exterior); Hutton, Trans. New Zealand Inst., 1x, 1877, p. 350.
It is evident from the figures given by tlector that this species is not
allied to the section of the genus Lagenorhynchus which Gray ealled
Electra, but rather to the genus Cephalorhynchus. It alsoappears to me
equally plain that it is not identical with the preceding species, C.
heavisidet. Hector’s account is full and clear, and the essential state-
ments in it are repeated by Hutton, who appears to have written from
his own knowledge. The latter writer states that it is “abundant all
around the coasts of New Zealand,” while Hector affirms that the differ-
ent individuals observed were very uniform in color.
The species differs from C. heavisidei chiefly in having the whole
head white, and in having a dorsal fin ovate rather than triangular in
outline. The cervical vertebrie are represented to be anchylosed to-
gether into a single mass, but tnis is probably an error.
The skull apparently very closely resembles that of C. heavisidei, but
is larger, with wider nares. The pterygoids, according to Hector’s
figure, are large and constricted at the base somewhat as in C. eutropia.
The entire animal would appear to be larger than C. heavisidei. Hut-
ton gives its length as from 4 to 5 feet. The latter dimensions are not
reached by any of the specimens of C. heavisidei thus far acquired, so
far as I am aware,
112 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
The skulls of Cephalorhynchus from New Zealand in the Paris Mu-
seum are larger than those from the Cape of Good Hope. The rostrum
in the former occupies one-half the total length, but in the latter only
about 46 per cent. It is possible that the New Zealand skulls belong
to the species under discussion.
The relations of these two species to a third recently discovered will
now be considered. This species is
CEPHALORHYNCHUS HECTORI (Van Beneden).
Electra hectori, Van Beneden, Bull. Acad. R. Belgique, 3d ser., 1, 1881, pp. 877-887,
LEG aot
The specimen figured and described by Professor Van Beneden was
captured in New Zealand waters. His admirable figures and descrip-
tion leave no room for doubt as to its generic position, but its specific
relationships are not so readily made out.
Externally the specimen differs from the figures of C. heavisidei in
having an ovate dorsal fin, and in that the throat and lower jaw are
white rather than black. On the other hand, it lacks the white fore-
head of C. albifrons, but agrees with that species in the shape of the
dorsal fin. The skull, according to Professor Van Beneden, agrees
perfectly with that figured in the Ostéographie, P|. xxxv1, fig. 1, which
seems undoubtedly to belong to C. heavisidet. The vertebral formula,
however, does not agree exactly with that of C. heavisidei. In the lat-
ter species the normal formula is probably as follows: C. 7, D 13, L. 15,
Ca, 30=65. Van Beneden’s specimen gives the following formula: C.
7, D. 14, L. 15, Ca. 27=63.
Regarding the differences, it may perhaps be said that the last-men-
tioned is due to individual variation. The color of the head and the
shape of the dorsal fin on the contrary can scarcely be so regarded.
But the color of the head is most like that of C. heavisidei, while the
shape of the dorsal fin resembles that of C. albifrons. ‘To put itin either
of these species, therefore, we must disregard one or the other of the
distinctions. For the present, it appears to me, it must stand as an
independent species, and I have ranked it as such in the Synopsis,
though with some misgivings, arising from geographical considerations.
CEPHALORHYNCHUS EUTROPIA (Gray).
Delphinus eutropia, Gray, Proc. Zooi. Soc. London, 1849, p. 1.
Eutropia dickiei, Gray, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1866, p. 215.
Tursio eutropia, Gray, Cat. Seals and Whales, 1866, p. 262.
Cephalorhynchus eutropia, Dall, in Scammon’s Marine Mamm., 1874, p. 289.
The only specimens of this species hitherto recorded are the two
skulls in the British Museum reported to have come from the coast of
Chili, ‘Of these the type (No. 936a) is somewhat the smaller, but
CEPHALORHYNCHUS EUTRODPIA., ERG
otherwise is practically identical with the second specimen (No. 936d).
While in London I purchased of Mr. Ei. Gerrard another specimen of
the species, also said to have been received from the coast of Chili.
This skull (No. 21167) is intermediate in size between the two in the
British Museum and resembles them very exactly, although the tooth.
a eeliine
: ? 32-31"
type specimen (936a) appears to have somewhat smaller temporal foss:e
than the other two; it may be a female.
In cranial characters this species appears to differ from C. heavisidei
principally in having the pterygoids longer and more closely approxi-
mated at the base. The brain-case also appears to be considerably
narrower and the teeth slightly more numerous. The skull is larger
than that of C. heavisidei.
We know nothing of the skeleton or external form of this species.
line is a trifle longer. The number of teeth is the same, viz
Table of measurements.
CEPHALORHYNCHUS EUTROPIA.
Breadth of | & ad
beak— | 3 os
5 ei | Ra] 2os
i 5 = ean ae
g faniee peg) tal) cea
= Collection. Type of— | Locality. : 2 & | 8a | © o| ge&P |
a S| elo bie bp 2 bes seer
S 8 By = mel co ilegs | On
= S = on a a aa ai oS
8 “A + a eR I ans a) Re fal
x oO 2 3) ~ = = HOF
Ss) M a 4 h=dekn 4 a i)
zs [ak [oe a
| Gm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. Cm. |
936a | Brit. Mus-.--- D. eutropia ---| Chili-.... |--.-.. Stopys 1) Mae) AERO Gore!) Bie 6.6
O26 Weed Ore woe ee cee tages ae eee Say (heen ae ee ae 32.8) 17.3} 7.2 | ONSulmeotes 5.3
AGT Was Nae.eMRSs|en eee neem (2) Chili 22|P 22: jot 18.7 |) TG) 6.00 |) 255 5,8) |
| | |
= — —— ~ ; — = SES i = SSS SS == == = a —= = aa ———SSS SS
4 Extremity Breadth | Temporal es acta “S I
& of beak to—| between— | __ fosse. | Ae deel i | o S
atike & 3 rel he |e. fs (ears
4 oH | A | | SL a \
Ge we asele Ve analges eI eae ape ors ee leap ;
5 Bye | ted PS Nee | re lean | ocr =
no a ao “=D = Wetttoa = a5 |) ¢53 da rs =) |
=! ~ 25 of nl |= =I | sere) | = | oD oS Oo
= ° BES eh ce Seo | || S & 2
= o |ceca a = Sy le pe) Pa Bis a i hs = a ~
a S| Sees ea Leela |e ce Whose | he heaves | ates alt Box 3 oe
ea ca am FH | me =] We Set lcs os os ; ad
= Ss |S3/s2)]e8 As | Lees lee Belerae ie Saetiee os =
oo eae alse |e Nae eel set eeccaien [acct =| Meer ete? oe 5
° or) pe | eo | Cy eS il | ey a | eS |S is | 46 o 2
= OD | 4 De =) B= So } (ao ~ | & | & | &9 2S a S
eS =) mA Selig we Ty FSS |! fel = Sle pel elle se a is.
= S a AD = = oie 3 D D D | o 2g | -= -
id) He iesyy nice] 4 | jo) jan) H QA 4 4 iA i=) A A
E E 2 ase es (OS ee eee foc Eee
| | | nk a |
Om. | Gm. | Om. | Gm. | Om. | Cm. | Om. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. |}
| | | | = 20-5
936a | 16.9 | 3.8 | 22.6|...... 15.2 14.2! 6.8] 6.0 | 30.0] 3.0]......| 66 | 0.25 |) 30-0
}¢ 30231
Bailie lipeore her Stee helcce'l| g Sabie aieae
9360 | 14.4 | 3.5 | 19.1 | 21.0) 13.1) 13.2) 6.7) 6.0 | 267) 2.7) 15.2) 5.5 0.25 ions
1 | 20—
| | aba | | | 31-32
21167 | 16.2 Qe eet odds lao) | Leech | 6.7 5.6 | 20.7 | AR AECE | eee | 5.6 | tees ; 39-31 |
| | 2S
18378—Bull. 36——8
114 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
11. NEOMERIS Gray.
Neomeris, Gray, Zool. Erebus & Terror, 1846, p. 30.
This genus appears to have but one character to distinguish it from
Phocena, namely, the absence of a dorsal fin. I was unable to discover
any peculiarities in the skull or the remainder of the skeleton which
could be regarded as sufficient to warrant a separation from the latter
genus. Is the absence of a dorsal fin a sufficient generic character ?
I believe that it is, or at least must be so regarded until we know more
of the anatomy of Neomeris. The case is somewhat different from that
of Leucorhamphus, because in that genus we find the absence of a dor-
sal fin correlated with certain characters in the skeleton. In Neomeris
no similar correlation has been pointed out. On the other hand, the
dorsal fins of the three species of Phocena show no signs of degenera-
tion and furnish us no steps by which to descend to Neomeris. It may
be, however, that when the anatomy of Neomeris is known many new
distinctions will be discovered. In the present state of knowledge I
would adopt Professor Flower’s conservative course, and leave the
genus to be sustained or set aside by later investigations.
Only a single species is recognized in the following pages, viz, N.
phocenoides (Cuvier).
NEOMERIS PHOCAENOIDES (Cuvier).
Delphinus phocenoides, Cuvier, Regne Anim., 2d ed., 1, 1829, p. 291.
Delphinus melas, Temminek, Fauna Japon., Mammif. marin., 1850, p. 14, pls, 25-26.
Delphinapterus molagan, Owen, Trans. Zool. Soe. London, vi, 1869, p. 24.
Neomeris phocwnoides, Gray, Zool. Erebus & Terror, 1846, p. 30, Malm, Sven. Akad.
Hand); na t., 1x, 1, L870) pyar.
Neomeris kurrachiensis, Murray, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist., 5th series, xm, 1884, p.
dol.
The three specimens of this animal which fell under my notice are as
follows:
MUSEUM D’HIST. NAT., PARIS.
No, A. 3087. Skull. Coast of Malabar. Dussumier. Type of D. phocewnoides
Cuvier.
No. A. 3086, Skull. Cape of Good Hope.
LEYDEN MUSEUM.
Skeleton. Japan. Briiger. Type of D. melas Temminck.
These three skulls agree well together, but in Temminck’s specimen
the beak is somewhat the longest, while the breadth of the brain-case
is least. In this skull the thickened portion of the intermaxille in front
of the nostrils rises very high. Distally the intermaxille are flat. The
foramen magnum is large, lozenge-shaped, and a little higher than
broad. The condyles are widely separated.
The total length of this skeleton is 128°. I counted the following
vertebree: C. 7, D, 13, L. & Ca., 43 = 63. The atlas and axis are united,
NEOMERIS PHOCANOIDES. 115
The transverse processes of the former are much less developed than
in Phocena. The inferior transverse processes of all the cervical verte-
bre are rudimentary. In the seventh cervical the superior trans-
verse process ends in a facet to which is attached a short rudimentary
cervical rib. The superior transverse process of the sixth cervical is
short and tubercular. The first seven ribs have heads which touch the
centra of the vertebree. The neural spines, which are broad and low
in the dorsal region, are obsolete in the neck. The sternum is very
short and broad, and has four pairs of ribs articulated with it. The
transverse processes become obsolete at the forty-third vertebra and
the neural at the forty-seventh vertebra. Seventeen chevron bones are
present. The skeleton is described by Temminck at some length, and
I am therefore spared the necessity of giving a complete account of it,
In 1884 Mr. F. A. Murray described an animal of this genus from the
Sind coast, which he made the type of a new species, N. kurrachi-
ensis. Such of his measurements of the skull as may be compared
with those which I have recorded indicate a correspondence in pro-
portions between his specimens and the type of NV. phocenoides, and I
find nothing in the description to show that his specimen was specific-
ally distinct from the latter species. The small rudimentary teeth at
the extremity of the alveolus are indicated in Temmincek’s figure. The
dorsal area of spiny tubercles is also indicated in Temminck’s figure
of the exterior. The purplish-red patch on the throat is not mentioned
by Temminck, but even if the two specimens differ in this respect,
they could scarcely, ou that account alone, be regarded as specifically
distinct. I believe that we may regard Mr. Murray’s description as
applying to NV. phocenoides.
Mr. Murray’s measurements are as follows:
IXTERIOR: Inches.
Length along curves from tip of snout to notch between caudal flukes 52
Memmihisiavomb= soos. se ay ayeone oe Su siotewionelgwiste tact oae se ote coe eee ae 45
Rip wtsenoun torpectoral ime aes. 6 cee a em Gaeaiere aemee acne rene 1.0
Canal thuikes sae: cet so nese te cess Sete snes de an os eb elie eee eloee Sas:
Distance of blowhole from tip of snout along curve .----.-..-...------ 6.5
Distanee fromcanalerot mowthi tol Cyr s.se cas a= seen ee eee oe 1. 62
Vienitsirom roo totscam dale iin. sa0 pice nin ae a me eatdiae ejtelceeeeel= -eayaeee 14.0
SKULL:
Length of skull over curves to upper edge of foramen magnum........ 10.
Benothystrarchtatromy belowe-s-oe. see anss oe cease ne pe cleese cee eoneee 8.
Heichbiot skull (vertex ofsuperoceipital))>-n26 ---- 42 ee nie- see ee wee ee 4,25
Mipror snout to. blowholens=s- <2 e588 aa ate eons caoeas ee eee eece 4,25
Lip.or snout: 60 inkerparietah)... o.oo sees pon) cto a clon sae aee eRe 6. 25
Interparietal to upper edge offoramen magnum..-.......--.--..------ SA
FACLOSSBIM ESA TOS es on iclep sine See Soa ante eet eres shee eieeene ator aes 4.75
ACEOSS OLOWNOIS 2225: agaccdlgs adi ajscue asck see sone g Sees sa aiaeea sche 1.5
MeCUE OUR MATAR a 222.52 = tcc calgann soe eee ctec as, oesiaaselebacioewenen as 2.0
Mem a@eMTSER: CAVILY <2 S520 2c\-Ss-c05c pace eee eneeetee tee ceeee BeOdeE 4.0
INGO: SPCH RD GLCINT 1 ae ae ne eee eae Pere eee ras
Greatest space between occipital condyles (upper) -.--...--.---------- 1.5
116 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATED 1 ATIONAL MUSEUM.
SKULL—Continued. Inches.
Smallest space between occipital condyles at lower third....---..----- 1.0
Vertical diameter jor foramen amdemumecss =e eeteee soc. ==.) a> eee 1.75
Breadth across last teeth on each side of upper jaw..---.---.--------- 2.5
Breadth across last tooth on each side of lower jaw ..-.---.----------- 2.5
Teeth line in upper and lower jaws.----.------ dee cakes iskices puerta et 2.5
Length of lower jaw at coronoid process..---.--.-.- AOGBb coSSoU eS saodee 5. 62
Greatest venticalidepthvof ramuspesseeeecsenoseeee cee eer emeeeeee 2. 62
Palate. s.5 ws ce eles sist easel ee ee Bee aoe jeOoCeS 25a" Seo She sce Aopacesee 4.0
Owen’s Delphinapterus molagan, from the vieinity of the Cape of Good
Hope, belongs apparently to this species.
N. phocenoides appears to have a wide range, extending at least from
the Cape of Good Hope to Japan.
Table of measurements.
NEOMERIS PHOCZNOIDES.
Breadth | ae
of beak—| » v6
= aes
oS al ceed a
B Ae Pa te
3 FE See.
H om = ~
8 A iiees a2 | S28
: . q iu pS,
=| Collection. Type of— Locality. f a 148 a} 5 | ae g & §
3 oS a ee | oe ee
ro oe OL Sey ~ — cr =| 2)
s ay | ° of| 3 Se ees
oo S| Si ialsan Ngee a eae eat
al Call tes to | 2 x | Sys
<4 ‘A 4 a a) o =
& 5 iS) Sac + HOF
S) MSI H i q | io)
Om. | Cm. | Cm.| Cm.| Cm Cm.
n.n. | Mus.Pays-Bas.| D. melas .....--. Japan .---...- sate oz ||) Oo \Gsiesbcas ia) || weit! 4.0
a3086 | Mus. d’Hist. | N. phocenoides..| Cape G. Hope.).--.| 18.8 | 6.2 | 6.6 | 4,% 2.5 3.4
nat. :
a308T Wak 200) ace eee |eaceee cee eres Malabar 22.5.- jenn MLSS) V6x3 ICP 3! asa) oe 3.0
(3) -Filksessescse Steer N. kurrachiensis.| Sind coast ..-.|---.| 20.3 |.-.--- Bree er eaaypcoeeal eaepace
ae at ee a eee ee ifn es Se eae] <
| Extremity | Breadth Temporal =| A = -
| 4 jot beak to—| between— | fossa. = 3 3 ®
| 8 2 . ge oe Oo. a
o | H is) a 3 3 2 ° on e
- a Qs a : a a ao!] §
> is} oO". = 3} 2 (a) ae = .
3) a ne Aan = neR cet i Sires ° H Z|
= re as | B® tol BP is} Ao Duk) ao oO
a za] Ol SOB | ey aH aa | cas As, a) “as
| Bo lie seh) EN, GS 0 a za igsecie ae = 2
=} 3 Se Steh | = aie 5 Bit | Ott | Or q 2
A + sonrenall ae a Sr A acs | oO | B-s
| wile ce) Be Reet 8) tae mee” este es ears
2 3 So | pes | 5 Be 5 ° iS) 5) 2° iz Hs
oo a S) Lo |i : peel vac es ota a 5 Cs 3)
io} ~ | amen ° n I ~ a PrP | + ~ Ad co 2
ra bo | 45 ag |. = 35 ep a 0 a) on 2 = A
ae d D 2a/|s 2 ae A a A A A = o
oe ® a A A m4 = 3 5 ® ® cs) @ H 2
1S) | <4 RQ jo) se) 4 A 4 HR ~ A 1 A
~ — ~ a = -— = =o |— } — | —
| Om. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Cm. | Cm. |
| —
nen.| 7.2] 20/121|127| 12.0] 11.8) 5.9] 23.8)417.0| 1.5|..---- ee Edits ae
15—15
@30861) soNG! jal son oie eases Os aal eee SAU feasts Ulla yea be hye eco 3.8} 2.5 |§ 18—19
17—19
satel (See | = WEG) 0—17
43087 5.7 1.6 9.4 9.4 | 10.4 | 10.7 4.6] 2.8] 13.5 DOW eters 3.8 2.5 | im=a8
=
(3) Grodalemesiae G52 Pesce 712-1. |t2oce- keosesl eaooe | tena loesoce CHS 20 aalleenome Sone cme ser
* From Murray. i Least. +Or § 18—18
GENUS PHOCANA. LLG
=
12. PHOCAANA Cuvier.
Phocena, Cuvier, Regne Animal, 1, 1817, p..279:
The genus Phocena is readily distinguishable from all the remaining
genera of the family, except Neomeris, by the shape of the teeth. From
the latter genus it differs in having a dorsal fin.
Professor Flower’s admirable diagnosis holds good for all the species,
except, as I have already pointed out elsewhere, * for one observed in
the North Pacific by Mr. Dall, which I have named P. Dallit. In this
species the number of vertebrie rises to ninety-seven or ninety-eight,
and the dorsal fin is faleate. In these characters the species shows
affinity to Lagenorhynchus, but, on the other hand, the skull (the only
portion of the skeleton preserved) is that of a Phocena.
Putting aside the number of vertebree and the form of the dorsal fin,
we still have in the form of the teeth, the shape and position of the
pterygoids, the form of the premaxill, and the presence of a dorsal fin,
sufficient characters for the differentiation of the genus.
I have elsewhere stated my opinion that the number of valid existing
species of this genus is probably reducible to four, viz, Phocawna com-
munis Lesson; Phocena lineata Cope; Phocena spinipinnis Burmeister;
Phocena dallii True. P. pectoralis Peale, I have shown in another
part of this work to be probably identical with Lagenorhynchus elecira
Gray (p. 101). P. tuberculifera, Gray, was finally admitted by that au-
thor to be the same as P. com munis Lesson. LP. brachycion, Cope, and
P. vomerina, Gill, have never been proven identical with P. communis,
Lesson, but Professor Flower, in 1883, expressed the opinion that such
was probably the truth, and I have myself reached that conelusion. As
regards the identity of P. lineata, however, the material at command is
scarcely sufficient to warrant any very positive assertions. The type-
skeleton is missing and nothing but the painted cast remains, and it is
evident that to base any conclusions upon the color of a painted cast
alone is hazardous. Special difficulty attends the discrimination of
species in this genus, because both the body as a whole and the skeleton
are subject to great variations in proportions and details of form.
The characters drawn from the relation of the vomer to the palatines,
which are employed by Professor Cope and Dr. Gill in the separation of
the different nominal species, are valueless.t To find other characters
is a task to which I have devoted my attention, but thus far without
success. I am constrained for the present to look upon P. communis,
brachycion, lineata, and vomerina as identical.
The species here recognized are, therefore, Phoceena communis Lesson,
1827; Phocenas pinipinnis Burmeister, 1865; Phocena dallit True, 1885.
*Proe. U.S. Nat. Mus., viil, 1885, pp. 95-98.
t Cope, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1876, p. 184. Gill, 1. ¢., 1865, p. 178. I
should state, however, that Dr. Gill has informed me that he no longer places any
confidence in these characters.
118 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
PHOCANA COMMUNIS Lesson.
Delphinus phocana, Linné, Syst. Nat., 10th ed., 1758, p. 77.
Phocana communis, Lesson, Man. de Mammalogie, 1827, p. 413. (Fide Flower.)
Phocena brachycium, Cope, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1865, p. 279.
Phocena vomerina, Gill, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1865, p. 172.
2? Phocena lineata, Cope, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1876, p. 135.
Of Phocenas from the east coast of America there are in the national
collection three complete skeletons, two of young individuals and one
of an adult; four additional skulls ; and three casts from fresh speci-
mens. Of P. vomerina there is one young skeleton and three skulls.
There are also in this collection the type-cast of P. lineata and a skele-
ton and two skulls of P. communis.
All the specimens from the east coast, except No. 16610, Cape May,
N. J., adult 2, are from Eastport, Me., and are not adult. The number
of vertebra in the three skeletons is as follows:
(a) No. 13301, Eastport, Me., C. 7; D. 13; La. & Ca. 44=64.
(b) No. 13305, Kastport, Me.,C. 7; D. 12; L. & Ca, 22 +.*=7,
(c) Unnumbered, Eastport, Me., C. 7; D. 13; L. & Ca. 46=66.
(d) No. 16610, 2, Cape May, N. J., 0.7; D.13; L. & Ca. 47=67.
In the skeleton of P. vo merina the formula is as follows:
(e) No. 14331, California, C. 7; D.12; L. & Ca. 45 (4+1)t=65 (or 66).
aceqawelocins from die i neawean code: mentioned by Hischer » have
the nerbebrs: as follows:
(7) C.7; D. 18-14; L. & Ca. 45-48=65-69.
It is evident that no character can be derived from differences in the
number of vertebra.
In all the American skeletons the caudal artery first perforates the
thirty-ninth vertebra counting from the last vertebra. This is, however,
a character of no value in differentiating P. communis, since in the skele-
ton figured by Van Beneden and Gervais (Ostéog., Pl. LV) the first per-
foration is in the thirty-eighth vertebra.
Tn his paper in the Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy, 1876,
Professor Cope brings forward the shape of the portion of the vomer
visible behind the palatines as a specific character. In two of the four
skulls from Eastport the vomer appears behind the posterior margin
of the palatines, while in the remaining two it does not. The same is
the case as regards the four skulls from the Pacific coast: in two it
appears, in the others, not. In one of the skulls of P. communis figured
by Van Beneden and Gervais, the vomer is visible, in another it is not.
It is certain, therefore, that this character, as already stated, is value-
less.
As regards the other characters given by Professor Cope for his P.
brachycium,—the shape of the muzzle, the prenari ial triangular area,
* Most of the earadal etter we are teéling.
t The last rudimentary vertebra is evidently lacking.
PHOCANA COMMUNIS. 119
the proximal ends of the premaxille, the nasals, and the portion of the
vomer visible on the palatine surface,—I find that no two of the East-
port skulls agree. They can therefore scarcely be regarded as of im-
portance in distinguishing the species.
In the List of the Cetacea in the British Museum,* Professor Flower
intimates that the skull of P. vomerina is larger than any other Pho-
cena skull in that collection. In looking over our own series, I was
at first struck by the size of two of the skulls of P. vomerina, but on
comparing M. Fischer’s measurements I find that neither of these is
as large as that of his specimen “ D. Femelle trés adulte,” t nor are they
as large as Malm’s specimen “t.”¢ The largest skull of P. vomerina,
No. 9078, from Puget Sound, is 29.3°" long, but it does not show any
considerable occipital crest nor other signs of age; while, on the other
hand, No. 16610, an adult female of P. brachycitum from Cape May,
N. J., though only 26.6 long, has the crest strongly developed. That
this fact is without significance, however, appears from the considera-
tion of two other skulls, both of which are 26.6 long. One of them,
No. 9164, is from Eastport, Me., and should represent P. brachycium ;
the other, No. 9077, is from Puget Sound, and represents P. vomerina.
The latter has the sutures between the elements of the occipital closed,
while in the former they are still open. The crest also is rather more
pronounced in P. vomerina. We have here, therefore, a fact exactly
opposed to that just presented, namely, in two skulls of equal size that
of P. vomerina appears to be the older, and might be presumed, there-
fore, to be the smaller species. It appears, therefore, that the absolute
size of the different skulls gives us no grounds for the distinction of
species.
As regards proportions, there can be no question that the girth of the
body of the specimen which Professor Cope called P. lineata, as com-
pared with its length, is much less than in the specimen from Eastport,
with which he compared. But it should be heldin mind that the latter
is only 434 inches long, while the type of P. lineata is 70 inches long.
The former is evidently very young, since a skeleton (No. 13301, from
Kastport), which measures fully 46 inches, has the sutures defining the
limits of the elements of the occipital still open.
The large size of the hea:l and the thickness of the body I look upon
as foetal characteristics not yet outgrown.
It is manifestly unwise to compare the type of P. lineata, which shows
evidence of being adult, with so young an individual as the Eastport
specimen. Fortunately we have two other casts nearly equaling the type
of P. lineata inlength. Of the larger of these, No sees an adult female,
we have the entire skeleton. In the following table are compared the
* List of the Cetacea in the Brit. Mus., 1885, p. 16.
t Fischer, Actes Linn. Soc. Bordeanx, xxxv, 1881, p. 165.
{K. Svenska Vetens. Akad. Handling., new ser., 1X, i, 1871, p. 75.
120 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
proportions of this specimen and the type of P. lineata, the measure-
ments in both cases being from the casts:
12481
3330. 9.
Adult 2. New York
athe Cape May, | Harbor.
ING fs (Type of P. |
lineata.)
Inches. Tuches.
TotalMenephinctaec succes wacecemocc ene mecene see matetee see 68. 0 70.0
Hx(remity of snouttioleve: oe Ace soa eee eee eerie == oee 6.5 7.0
Extremity of snout to blowhole..........----.---.------- feo) 7.0
Extremity of snout to corner of mouth .-......--..--.--- 4.75 4,75
Extremity of snout to anterior base of pectoral....--.--- 13.0 14.5
Extremity of snout to anterior base of dorsal.......-.--. 29. 0 30.0
Vertical heightiot dorsallsjs. tae een wesc ses oe ee 4.0 3.79
Lensth ot pectoral o~ (o3o6 sso cemcnen-cimensseceesn ee 7.0 7.25
Greatest widtivoL pectorala.-tececeenoe tenes tec ences SOM EL sass seen
Widtk between points of flukes .-...-....-5.--------.2-- teh 155
Considering the variation in proportions occurring in this genus, [
think it will be admitted that the proportions in these two individuals
are remarkably similar, and that No. 15339 must be identified as 7.
lineata, if such a species exists. But the skeleton of this indivicual
(osteological No. 16610) is at command and it exhibits no characters by
which it may be distinguished from a skeleton of P. communis from Kuro-
pean waters. It is therefore strongly probable that the missing skeleton
of the type of P. lineata was likewise identical with that of P. communis.
The measurements of P. vomerina given by Scammon are taken from
two individuals, one 4 feet 8 inches long, the other but 4 feet.* in a
skeleton from California, which is 4 feet long, the suture between the
atlas and axis is plainly visible, the epiphyses of the centra are free,
and the elements of the occipital are distinct. It is proper, therefore,
to hold that Scammon’s specimens were both young, and to compare
them only with young specimens from the Atlantic. When we come
to examine Scammon’s measurements, however, we find tue differences
in the proportions of the two individuals so great that we can not hope
for any satisfaction in comparing them witl Atlantic specimens. It
is true that Scammon’s two specimens belonged to opposite sexes, but
the differences are too great to be ascribed to difference of sex. Tor
example, in the female, which was 48 inches long, the width of the
pectoral fins was as great, the height of the dorsal greater, and its
length along the back as great as in the male, which was 56 inches
long. In the small female, also, the distance from the extremity of the
snout to the eye was as great as, and to the blowhole greater than, in the
larger male. In comparing these specimens with others from the At-
lantic, therefore, we shall be at a loss to determine whether the differ-
ences observable are to be regarded as indicating specific distinctness
or as being due to individual variation. As the Atlantic Phocenas
* Marine Mammalia, p. 96.
PHOCANA COMMUNIS. 121
also vary greatly in proportions, we shall gain nothing by comparison.
On this point we must await the result of future investigations
We turn finally to the question of color. The color of P. lineata is
accurately described by Professor Cope (1. ¢.). The back upper half of
the head, posterior part of the tail, flukes, and pectoral fins are black.
The sides are pinkish and the belly is white. A black line passes from
tle base of the pectoral fin to the corner of the mouth. The edges of
the lower lip are black. The Cape May female and another female
specimen, 5 feet 1 inch long, have nearly the same coloration, except
that the sides are yellowish instead of pink and the light color of the
belly extends nearly to the flukes and leaves only a slight band of dark
color around the lower lip. The Cape May specimen also has no dark
band from the pectoral fin to the mouth, but it exists in the second
female. Are these differences in color sufficient to warrant the separa-
tion of P. lineata ?
M Fischer’s figure of an old female (PI. vu, fig. 1) agrees in colora-
tion and form with the cast of P. lineata, except that the sides are gray
instead of pink and that the band of color from the pectoral fin to the
mouth is broad and gray instead of narrow and black.
In point of color, Seammon’s description of P. vomerina is applicable
‘to M. Fischer’s specimens of P. communis. Isubjoin Scammon’s descrip-
tion of the female of P. vomerina and the description by Lafont of a
female of P. communis :
P. vomerina (female). P. communis (female).
The female is of the same color above Dos noir; flanes d’un gris de fer jaspé
(black); it is lighter on the sides, with a | de blanc; abdomen dun blane un peu
narrow black streak running from the grisitre; pectoralsnoires; une ligne noire,
corner of the mouth to the pectorals, and | trés étroite, part de leur attache et se
the lower portion of the animal is of a | dirige vers la commissure labiale ; rostre
milky whiteness; yet the pectoral and | noir. (Lafont.) [ Fischer, ]. ¢., p. 165.]
caudal fins are black underneath or of a
dark gray. [Scammon, Marine Mam.,
p- 95. ]
It will be observed that Lafont’s specimen only differs in having the
white of the belly “un peu grisitre.” In another specimen this region
was white, as in Scammow’s P. vomerina.
Summing up the available evidence I find no reason to regard P.
brachycion or P. vomerina as distinet from P. communis. P. lineata, if
distinct, differs only in color, a character which in this genus must be
looked upon with distrust.
t22
BULLETIN 36,
Table of measurements.
PHOCANA COMMUNIS.
UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
Fs eg
| Breadth of | © oe
beak— 8 BA
= a>
Sieh Ses
lee Sa 1 a
eS | 3 S| acer
z | = ou =) ae
FI Collection. Type of— Locality. ae sath Bo | cas
: gl) a |e eal oF 2 beg
A 50 = = Cars) = 2S) ao
2 es oh ws | Ow = = ao
=] =| ° | ° = | Pe)
of eles seh) ay | oe Se eee
E \¢)a)e/2 18/8 | e820
= wn oe Aa | o cea!
oS SI is) 3) ir ~ ee BSR
1} | w oH AH id 4 3 1)
| Cm. |; Cm. ! Cm. | Cm. | Cm. Cm.
S645 WE Saat vit ease eee ese eee eee Eastport, Me .| Jr.) 26.5 | 11.6 | 7.5] 4.7) 2.2 S25
[3205s acQOveneascce Non ceaeaeo eee see se Baten eet one JT.) 24,49 10200) a3) | 4a) 3220 Sul
[SSO Dae: Cons 2 ted| Sanise = eeigdocee se |-- somes fret aeas te LOS rae) AO} a9 4.0
9157 Oe aactrsedl sawe shane see eelte Ey lO Ge ore ner ; Jy.) 24.7 | 9.8 6.8 4.1 2.0 eu
Q0T8is|| 1 Or aden mee eerste acadseess | Puget Sound .| Ad} 29.3) 13.7] 85] 55] 2.5 4,2
DOR aed Oye 6.2 So = ll aoe aeies ae oeee se j-2= dO. 2-- -- =: een eeGno nally) bo aoa 4.7 2.2 3.6
2965 | Roy. Col. Surg.| P. tuberculifera..| Brighton, Eng.| 9 | 26.4) 10.7) 7.8] 50] 25) 3.6
LUM tert | (een eereal ll oes Scie ae ee ame eae on mS peer Be > | Me | 26.2 | 10.9 Tero eal wean 3.4
| | }
|= | Extremity | Breadth | Temporal | Sn se (geet
sey eae y| Breadth emporal | ae a | 8 a
| = |of beak to—| between— foss. (2 Aes oo
esse _ si = o- | Seay a
| | | | } <
si) ae HOS eK oe ae ae eee ae
=: | @ |ed| B eats SN med ote gare
g ap Meee e bes = | 25/45) aa| 6a i
e fee re EG | Pe | Siz S Sessa | oe 5
= > tel | Gel O° |} &f.2 a SSI So | os aS a)
=I = cig) > mie Sy ester loser le cile GS-2 +
A pate 2 eee ae ately) | Byala alice £3 fe, =
Sane Sees Bm) | FS | Se de Seas ;
eer: BP gene Fal eecal Bah accagh Shi ele eee ae
Se te © des since | ea |e | ov a eee eee lesen a
ra Coen alter 3 eee als ate) oe. || fe elie aa pons uae 8
3 o | 3 a Zig ies < x 2 3 oer lpexomlucs
Oo See ey 2 A Q See re) Sy It ies) A
sae [ass : Site ee 2 So ZL :
| | ! i |
Cm. | Cm.| Cm.| Cm. |} Om. | Om. | Om. | Om. | Cm.| Cm. | Om.| Om. | Cm
| | | | P35)
| 9164 | 10.0 | 21/147 )...... Pe tere Ge | DP tesla [nae ee ae if nee
| | | { | | ——' ae
| | | |
| | | 795
13305 | 8.9 | 1.8 | 12.8 | 14.8) 12.1).--... \eisses Pei MERZ CPA EY Ne oece 5.0 2.6 |§ a =
| | | Sa)
| | | |
| | | | | | Sor
13301 | 86) 20] 126) 45/1203 |...... ayo 17305. Were) iG) tea | 47] 3.5/5 ees
| | | | | @a
US) ASH ie or nc i 1) C2 hn inet Sh ee Scion 456] 3.6 22252 | comes nclestail aiSie ote fe wiele ore eine iar
| | | Dee
S078" a188:| ‘29, wea | 19.4 V8.7) 13-9)|/ 160" saad Sasa" Pero ca 64) 35)f = PH
| | | | | | | | H -——
| 9077| 9.9) 24] 14.8| 16.4] 1231...--. 59 | 40) 90,7. | Deane a gl Babe $ * 5 Sie=86
| | | | Qt /26=25
| | | 21—2
2965.) 9.4 | 2.1 | ag | 16.2. | 197 | 12.8") 6:3 Sa BIG | 2s0)) Wd ST ace. § as
| | | | £ £o—2Z
Sxl | | | | | ¢ | 296
2970) SO58i0|) (250) || WAS 2h) TAO 63 (see sal eseeee legpcne >) a (eee 2 a er |e —
| | | | | | | [2 Z4—25
ie | ie | | |
PHOCENA SPINIPINNIS Burmcister.
Phocena spinipinnis, Burmeister, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1865, p. 228; An. Mus.
Pub. Buenos Aires, I, 1864-69, pp. 380-388, Pls. XX11I-XXIV.
No one who has read Dr. Burmeister’s description of this species and
compared his measurements and figures with those of P. communis can
doubt its distinetness.
The black color, the peculiar form of the dorsal
fin and its position, the large size of the pectoral fins, and the small
number of teeth, are ail characters which it is impossible to set aside.
PHOCANA DALLI. 123
The type-specimen, though very young, measured 162° in length,
which would indicate that the species is larger than P. communis.
In the following table a part of Dr. Burmeister’s measurements of
the skull and exterior are placed in juxtaposition with the measurements
of a male specimen of P. communis given by M. Fischer, and of a skull
of P. communis from Puget Sound, in the national collection.
Measurements of the exterior.
F Spinipin- P. communis
Measurements. ORS eae Pe! dnale (from
Burmeister). discher).
Cm. Om.
TLotallencthi soso . 20 2 - fame eee eet ee ee eee 7.0
ALO Oi? WON EE TON, WO Ellas ooo g2o0 ScoceasodSse6 Ssone Choose ga50 5600 cEecee senses 9.5
Tip of lower jaw to front edge of pectoral at its insertion..........--.....--.- 11.0
Tip of lower jaw to back edge of pectoral at its insertion. ...........----.---- 14.0
Tip of lower jaw to anterior edge of blowhole’- .2.. 222-20. - 222 ooo nee wenn 9.0
Eye to spouthole (vertical) ......... "ia BGR the a Bes Soe os Sa org Aa 4.0
Across base of pectoral...---... wad suis slob emae cers nek esac emer eeyinep eames ress 5.5
NOELLE WEISS) OLE [HCO TO DE Seo boo Sos chon sgn beo code cond. c8o5 Bode coe deoc &. 0
Rosterior base Of peeborell tom tip secre ee eee eet ee ele lee 5. 73
Tip of lower jaw to anterior boundary of the white area........---...----..-- 27.3
Spouthole to anterior edce of dorsaleas ase eee seme oem eee eae eeepc este 18.5
Height of. dorsal-i=---isccsas une ps cee mane era Sib thd 2 oes Sa eae 6.0
Length: of base of dorsal 2 = 222222 te 225 neat ee en eee ee ee 10.5
Length posterior margin of dorsal. .... ---. ---- .--+ --- +++ e222 eee eens eeeeee ao
Tip of lower jaw to genital slit...-.--- 2-2-2. .s.e0. 56-2 ens eee eee -=-- === 43.0
Length of venitial slit: .. 2. dodeccccsnen sac. om aa ees pene ai rine == 3.0
Genital slit to ;amms'- 522s. 52 eee econ sce aterla ciate ste lan ae eee ete ete erties To 4.25
Anus to notch of the flukes....-.... ws eas re eee ened os 22.75
Breadth ofeiikes|(transwerse) psssee ses eae eee eee ee ete eee 18.5
ene th of dinkest(amtero-p OStenlom) see eee a seas ete ee eee eee eee 5, 25
Breadth of narrowest part of tail before the flukes..-....-.........--0.------ 1.75
GENUS GRAMPUS. 125
Inches.
Heightotbodyat same pont «6. . << 2s one cone eccsusce ces peicinistefetalomysiscieyetee 3) Be
enthtomeyemanseemane erases, es hoS Sac ec 3 oc) secu eee etees See senie wasc 27d
Wid thgotespoutholemseecctece sant ccc alc sce ues aaeacseeere cies acer eam ae 1.87
Extension of white area posterior to the anus........---...- An ada eultoged 6.5
eneihtofwaiie-areaalong the. belly... sic g.88 oe eee eo idas ee eo ee 18. 0
Widthverheadiab corner ‘of the mouth: -.2...,ciws.oscasaeneespaces ok talento ea 5.5
Depth of body 24 inches anterior to the flukes (at which point the keels are
WWALOL OS Ui) ere epee eats Sete ore ween ace ate ee ee me ES eae (ote PRL 10.0
IGepihisninchestantenion tonnes sess. sss sea eee eee re eer eee ee
Navel to anterior end of genital slit.-......-../.-.. -..------ ooo censor 7.9
Measurements of two skulls of Phocena dallii.
No. 21762 | No. 22566
P.dallii; | P. dali;
Measurements. Adakh Id.,| Hoonyah
Alaska. | Sound,
Type. Alaska.
Om. Om
Motablen ath emcece amceiecess eee neers sae an meee eelseer 33.3 31.4
Mongthvoiebealky = ascm aes eeissaeeseee weitesisee lee nisiaiss steer eicsiae 14.0 12. 6
Breadthiof, beakjat, base Of NOtChesg Xe <2 cacsmweme «coe ns cclemeecesaas Ohh 9.8
Bread thiof® beaksat its middie) eases. seene te sees eece since cece eee 527 6.1
Breadth of intermaxillaries at same point ...-..-.--.......-.---. 3.5 Br
Greatest breadth between outer margins of intermaxillaries
LONG MA yer ainte nee aiate ese ale eens sine sioaciome eee ee ia 5.1 6.0
ene pro huOOuna lin Gases eaten as neciae ne see ses ace cas cee saat emeee: 12.7 11.9
Last too*h to base of maxillary notch ..-...-.. eceter sceecmeee ss 2.2 ide Yi)
Tip of beak to anterior margin superior nasal opening-......---. 17.8 a2
Tip of beak to end of crest of pterygoid ......2.....-..----.---- 21.3 219.3
Breadth between orbital processes of frontal. ......-......----.- 16.5 16.5
Breadth between hinder margins of temporal fossw#..........--. 16,2 17.2
engthzot temporalltossaase.2-6> see. eo cecen- pee sea eecicoceceern 5. 6 4.9
Depth of temporal fossa..--..- BEG Sacsae - ciclsiie eee sick oot ee cee 2.6 3.0
Notaitlenchhiot mandibles sss. eee ae ceoe ne ecenereeneen een. 2d. 5 24.0
Heng thot Symplysis ofmandiblesessccenese cuss esee seeacee seme 3.8 3.8
Menethror tooth rowsaf mandibles-so.csccceeceee qa oeee cece eens 12. 2 NMED
Depth between angle and coronoid process.......--------------- 5.7 6.3
Nim bento L tee thises cance sae eae rece naen eM mane oe tay meee ae = ——
27-27 24-25
14. GRAMPUS Gray.
Grampus, Gray, Spic. Zool., 1828, p.2; Zool. Erebus & Terror, 1846, p. 30.
GRAMPUS GRISEUS (Cuvier).
Delphinus griseus, Cuvier, Ann. Mus., x1x, 1212, p. 14, pl. 1, fig. 1.
Delphinus Rissoanus, Desmarest, Mammalogie, 1822, p. 519.
Grampus Cuvieri, Gray, Ann. Nat. Hist., 17, 1846, p. 85.
Grampus Souverbianus, Fischer, Act. Linn. Soc. Bordeaux, xxxv, 1881, p. 210.
Grampus sakamata, Gray, Zool. Erebus & Terror, 1846, p.31.
Grampus Stearnsii, Dall, Proc. California Acad. Sci., v, 1813, p. 13.
Globiocephaius Rissiit, Anon., Chinese Repos., vi, 1838, p. 411-414.
Globiocephalus Chinensis, Gray, Cat. Seals and Whales, 1866, p. 323.
M. Fischer* and Professor Flowert having discussed at length the
question of the identity of G. griseus and G. Rissoanus, and having
reached the conclusion that no distinction is to be made between the two
nominal species, it is unnecessary for me to repeat the arguments, since
*Fischer, Act. Linn. Soc., Bordeaux, xxxv, 1881, p. 195, et seq.
t Flower, Trans. Zool. Soc., London, vit, 1872, pp. 1-21, pls. 1, 2.
126 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
I find no reason to dissent from the opinion of these two eminent natur-
alists. Ishall give attention, instead, to the question of the relationship
of the specimens in our collection from the east coast of the United
States, and to that of the identity of G. Souwverbianus Fischer, G. hich-
ardsont Gray, and G. Stearnsti Dall.
The material in the national collection comprises four adult skeletons,
ten skulls,a cast of an adult about 12 feet long, casts of two young
individuals about 6 feet long, and of three adult heads. All these
specimens are from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, whence they were re-
ceived in the fall of 1875. Professor Cope has figured two of the heads
and also an entire young individual (of which the cast is not at present
to be found) in the Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy (1876,
Pl. ITE).
The large cast (No. 12859) is from a female, about 12 feet long. Its
dimensions are as follows:
Inches.
Total length (straight ling))-2- «See ae aoe se i oe elect eae ee eee 130
Extremity of snout to eye....... oid Saja ja cicteicte, a ere tucehe aie aie were orale ere See 15
Extremity of snout to blowhole ...-. Seo Sere SRI GCEUES ESOS 17
Pxtremity of snoutto CoMmen oe mOubhy sss eso eee eee see aera 3
Extremity of snout to anterior base of pectoral fin..-..-..--..-.-.-.----- ---- Be
Extremity of snout to anterior base of dorsal fin....-. .-.-.----.-----+------ 50
Length of pectoral fin alqng center 22: -- 252. 2.454. qocqscaces Bow se seaa een ES
Greatest width‘of pectoral fin os... seas coe ee ee een oar e ee ee eons 84
Vertical hes htvotidorsal fin: <2) aso cyan ate ster oie ae erent ate ee 134
iengihef base.ef dorsal’ fin. i222.) 222n tate) non oon cee eee eee 22
The cast represents one side only of the body. The general color,
covering the body and all the fins, resembles that of the portion of
Professor Flower’s figures between the dorsal and pectoral fins, viz,
a steel-gray of medium depth and everywhere uniform. The lower
lip and chin, the margin of the upper lip, and an area on the belly
beneath the dorsal fin are of a light gray color, approaching white.
The whole body and the fins are traversed by irregular lines of a light
gray color and of varying width and length.
This individual, therefore, differs from that figured by Professor
Flower in being more uniform in color, the light areas being more limited
and the pectorals not mottled.
The outlines of the body are practically the same in the two speci-
mens, but in ours the dorsal fin is less high and wider.
One of the casts of the two young individuals (No. 1), which is 68
inches long (on the curves), is exactly like the young specimen figured
by Professor Flower, except in the following particulars: The upper
parts are rather lighter, and the light color of the belly extends back ot
the anus half way to the flukes. The diagonal stripes are represented
in our specimen by three vertical lines between the dorsal fin and the
flukes. In the specimen figured by Professor Cope,* which was ob-
*Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci, Phila., 1876, pl. 3.
GRAMPUS GRISEUS 127
/
tained in the same locality, the diagonal lines are much like those
represented in Professor Flower’s figure.
The second young individual (No. 2), which is 75 inches long (along
the curves), departs in color both from that figured by Professor Flower
and that just described. The whole head, including the eyes and
mouth, and to the blowhole, the belly, lower half of the tail and under
side of the flukes, and pectoral fins are light yellowish, approaching
white. On the upper part of the head and on the lower lip the tint ap-
proaches lemon yellow. The back and upper side of the flukes and pec-
toral fins are dark gray. On thelips and over the base of the pectoral fin
are irregular areas of light brown.
The contour of the body in this specimen, however, is exactly that of
the specimen previously described, and in spite of the difference in color
I do not hesitate to assign them to the same species. The dimensions
of the two specimens are as follows:
Measurements. No. 1. No. 2.
|
| | Inches. Inches.
Tip of snout to notch of flukes (on the curves) .-.--.---------------- 68. 0 73.0
iprotisnomt ho eye) ase selse ser meee meet =a = lla 8.5 10. 0
Lip of snout to corner of mouth --....--..--..----------- saocesoncess 8.0 8.75
Tip of snout to base of pectoral fin -....------- ScHSocchisaces osocadac 13.0 16.0
ipio LS WOW tO sO LOW HOO. eee orien ae ama wine elie lee l= SOSStISGr 10.5 115
Tiplomsnout lord ousal tities ae nasa near eae oer epee eee eee 30.5 32. 5
Length of pe2toral along the center.....--.-.--.---..--..--.-------- 9,75 10.0
Wiidthviof pectoral (PLreatest) =~. - - cee = mm = melee eee oa 4.0 4.0
Ward note thoes essa eoaiete meet eleraie be aan te sosiv ek as si gneismiceti eae Neb is} 14.50
Height of dorsal fin (vertical).--.-....- Bpaaace me meereicktaee wSeeoeseen t. 20 6.25
menohhor. baseiotya onsalltim tee etem ce eriol ive
1
12; L. & Ca, 48 (? +1) =67 (or? 68). Unmounted.
The two mounted skeletons agree very closely with that described by
M. Fischer, There are some slight differences in the point at which
128 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
the chevron bones commence, etc., which are shown in the following
table:
M. r Professor
Characters. Fischer’s aa Pees Flower’s
skeleton.| ~"~""" ~ ovo" | skeleton.
Motalmmmber Ol Merbe Diyas eee eeeeeeeer 68 | 65 (?+3) | 67 (242) 68
Chevrons begin at vertebra number -..-.-----. 43 | 38 229 39
Chevrons end at vertebra number .-.--- eee ae 58 |258 61 59
| Neural spines become obsolete at number . .--.. 60 | 59 60 57 |
Transverse processes become obsolete at number 54 | 54 54 53
Perforations for caudal artery begin at number 47 | 45 46 44
Phalanges:
Birsttnrer S)caconc econ eters cee eeestacee as 20) Ae. Yo sceeeecee 1
Secomulnmeeres nse see ee ameeate eee Cpe eer Su eesesce sae 9
AN Mee Soe has Soe ogesaceooconooeScuas Bi! Mie) | bee eee ai
Fourth finger ------ feels s Soca eemaee eee suis a1 2 Neem eee 2
JUIN TNE ees coscdosassooce soscodososee HONE a 2 os Pee ceaeee 0
\
As regards the shape of the sternum, the number and shape of the
sternal ribs, the shape of the acromion and coracoid and of the hyoid
bones, ourtwoskeletons agree exactly with that described by M. Fischer.
The skulls are of all ages, the younger having the eiements of the
occipital bone, and likewise all the other bones of the skull separate,
while in the older the sutures between the palatine and maxillary bones
and the maxille and intermaxille have disappeared.
In five cases the mandible is present, and there are also in the col-
lection two additional compiete jaws. In these the number of teeth
sas follows: 4-£; 4-4; 4-4; 5-4; 5-4; 5-5; 6-6; which goes to con-
firm the truth of the remark of M. Fischer, viz:
ll est difficile de ne pas admettre une seule espéce, dont la dentition varie entre
3-1 et 6-6.*
The proportions of the adult skull described by Professor Flower
agree very Closely with those of one of equal size in our Museum, as
is Shown in the following table (Professor Flower’s measurements being
jor convenience reduced to centimeters) :
Professor No. 21047. |
Measurements, Flower’s spe-| Cape Cod,
cimen @. Mass.
Cm. | Cm. |
LO MEM He OSE Sener Sgn cen SeOSoOOCes SSacc Sod S005 5068 48.8 | 48.7
MenchhiOMrOstsUMle cence see tess Ee ere se ees e Sete ee 2376. 24.6 |
3readth of occipital foramen. -2.--5-22- 2c. seseee se seeees 3.8 4.7 |
Greatest height of occipital foramen ......-...-.---------- 4.8) 5. 1
Breadth of occipital condyles ).<) 2» a 2
io) HTH 4 ica] oO | | R HA H A Fa] A
| |
| Cm. | Om. | Om. | Cm. | Om. | Om. | Om. | Om. | Om. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm
iC RT eee ese Ee Wd hay Buc Re aC) re) | a EO A ge, cee ea Fk TON cee
115 cc el aoe ae Sec ONl SoES Ie) ote oA ora (PC ONGE | ee | eet elt ceeimate niin anata
A GSODe (ee ei) as 35.3 |.33.6 | 30.8] 22.3/12.3| 6.5]...... Cg Re gl SS Week hy, A
CT ead (ae ae Suhel Eee ETE ia MSP ahh ah b GC fe eta A lc a en [Rael Oy
SUG) |e | anes. SOP Wil a0% Ae 3 1 yl R20 eae atasnl MSO) | ihe ea eases ell tt a [seal (ine ANC ag
dopaed|fee ee | 2ee OG. Gina AR fae | NE len |g Sek hea (i ier
METHE eae olhneek 28.4 | 28.6 | 26.0/187/ 107] 62/362] 4.7] 55] 90]...... ; =
7s lle OR 19.41 20.5201 171-| Oo |) bel | 200) 31 | 46) G7 1,-.22. =
Cla ee ea oy ba 27,4 120.1 | 1.8] 4.7] 33.3 | 259 5.8] 94 |... a
| 7
BELe fseee lites. S| Dieu BAN GES [IL Gs) TaSiar ce ol te atc lnc emcclacecoal aseeece heed aoe:
ECU ere ea ee fe GB epee Fee eee aeeeee 40.0) 5.3| 7.0) 9.9] 0.76 |f 0-0
| | =
LODGB a) ee were 31.1 | 31.5 | 28.4] 20.1| 10.9] 5.7 Tepe 6.6| 9.5 | 0.76 =
*Least. +t Rudimentary alveoli closed. {Rudimentary alveoli open. § Occipital sutures distinct.
15. GLOBICEPHALUS Lesson.
(Globicephala Lesson, Mamm. découverts depuis 1788, 1828, p. 441.)
GLOBICEPHALUS MELAS (Traill).
Dephinus melas, Traill, Nicholson’s Journal, xx11, 1809, p. 81, pl. 3.
Delphinus globiceps, Cuvier, Ann. Mus. d’Hist. nat., xrx, 1812, p. 14, Pl. 1, 2 figs.
Globiocephalus Svineval, Gray, Zool. Erebus & Terror, 1846, p. 32.
Delphinus intermedius, Harlan, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v1, 1829, p. 51, Pl.
Tpit.
? Globiocephalus affinis, Gray, Zool. Erebus & Terror, 1846, p. 32.
Globiocephalus Edwardsii, A. Swith, African Zoology.
Globiocephalus incrassatus, Gray, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 186], p. 309, 1 fig.
Spherocephalus incrassatus, Gray, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1864, p. 244; Catalogue,
1866, p. 324.
Traill’s concise description and generally accurate figure leave no
doubt whatever as to the identity of his Delphinus melas. Gray was
surely at fault in employing Lacépéde’s name, Catodon Svineval, since
the only part of the latter’s description which is diagnostic in no way
applies to the blackfish.
The generally accepted opinion that the blackfish of the northeastern
coast of North America, the Delphinus intermedius of Harlan, is identical
with the Globicephalus melas of European waters, seems to rest upon an
excellent basis. Harlan’s species was described from a specimen from
134 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL: MUSEUM.
Salem, Mass. There are in the Museum collections some six or eight
skulls, three skeletons, and two casts of specimens from Cape Cod, Mas-
sachusetts, and also some ten photographs of different schools which
have stranded from time to time near Provincetown, at the extremity
of the Cape. In external appearance the specimens photographed cor-
respond to Harlan’s description and very crude figure, and on the other
hand they correspond exactly, to the individuals from European waters
figured by Murie, Couch, and Cuvier. All the individuals of which
the under surface of the body is shown in the photographs (some twenty
or more), without exception, have the peculiar white mark on the throat
and median line of the belly, represented in Cuvier’s figure. Har-
lan’s statement, that the length of the dorsal fin is only one-thirteenth
of the total length, seems to be based on a measurement of the figure,
which is certainly incorrect as regards the dorsal. In the seelce the
vertebral formula is the same as that given by Flower for G. melas.*
In two complete skeletons the formula is as follows: No. 14417: C.7, D.
11, L. 14, Ca. 27=59. No. 20958: C. 7, D. 11, L. 18, Ca. 29=60.
Pe eee eas ag om 2. 9-9 %2 10-9 %11 9-9 10—10
The teeth in six skulls are as follows: 75 y9-49 7 =o SS
—?
The number 4 to _ would therefore appear to be the average, which
s also the number commonly found in European specimens. aan
9 S 5 2 es
g le Boece
5 Collection. Type of— Locality. ng a i ‘ 3 2 Fas
=] 4 ° o & o 2 = = ad
= ia ea 2 a s ee | OB
>) | of a0 Se SS) | ae Or a
3 =| ° ° “a 2S) ae Be
ee os ® A sel) Ie) aA} na
S ae. no |G n = Pod.
os Ss 2 A x Ba
» P| » =| vu o o=
3 oO ° oe = = a ka Ooms
o oy |) IE Hij4 |} 4 | o
| Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm
| TREES LS SAANUS |lecc a5 opcncoaca @ape.Cod .--:.-- Ad.| 62.6 | 31.8 |*23.5 | 17.8 | 15.7 4.5
| | Mus. |
| LAS GT ee pUO ee maclicceeiae ce ceiteree a eee O) seca eeenes Ad?| 61.8 | 30.9 |*23.7 | 18.3 | 15.5] 15.5
12097 en One mre aie | ane atom ear Bee Oue see emee oe Ad.| 62.4 | 31.3 |*23.0 | 17.6 | 15.4 | 15.8
TRU || sonal sopco|leconsoessecsieoce Sea decasoubec Ad. | 65.5 | 33.4 |*24.0 | 19.4 | 15.4] 16.3
90950"). < do)... =... |tececetaeseee ee sus dOlneeeses se Dike OAS Le e255) | USia| los Geil Mio) || eoawn
20957 OO Seca ee ee ween sces bee pO merino sania Jr. | 49.4 | 23.1} 16.1 | 11.3 | 10.4 | 12.5
2999) Roy, Colle | Ga piiss esas eee einem eels pose | 6225) | 3158) 2351 19a oso aah
Surg. | .
* K. Svenska Vetens. Akad. Handl., ny foljd, 1x, i, 1871, Art. 2, p. 85.
GLOBICEPHALUS INDICUS. 137
Table of measurements—Continued.
ey | | lice
hes Extremity | Breadth | Temporal | | unr I
S _ of beak to— | between— fossx. I A |
onl a | abr ts
a — —— (=) i) aM
eH : | Sa
Sates at |e a 3 | Uedess erage Be MU Ses
roy ot nO | - Oo a 5 eeu 2 . oS .
= é A on a) r® Fe | oeteess lek |
Bo) 228) a8 |S EL = |f2|28/e8) 4
F SR Sse cut Uwe | a | fs} es | ez 2
a ~ aie = ne | | is a | ah | 2 5 me,
2s ye ie ean Mal vaeh| Sie | Sui ee aris
oo = 5 SOR ae 1 care iat ey Ala ed : 24 /\/4 a S =
° ~ + H & 3 | D |} og f=) As! ~ — = oo =
s op 42 os = |. 32 | =o eL = Sy oo i) = g
re) A w ey i 2 ae a imal A = a ~ 5
a | ®o | @ A A = crt hE ee 2 o ov Dy 7) 4
2) | 4 & | &.) A oA A RA }R JR JA A
ee ee ee | or valle % as oh ae wate
Cm. | Cm. | Om. Cm Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om.
ipegs (Tse Wis e|4eee Ano. | 40,00 ated dasS4) GAT Wolo ste leec| /8ls 2 [oleae i wee
| | ‘—
| pine
T4SGD!. | oe. lees = 41.7 AQ 3) [3952 26.19)))) 15.1 Ee Ae cellsaanene||ooaese) ocd ae 12
| | 10—10
9 9 10— 9
P2097 | MSS 2 nae 42:5 | 39.3} 28.9 | 12.9 FED) Laeraae |picatese| farctss a melanie ==
: | 7. - - 97 90.7 5 EE fl
12100 | 18.4 | Ted || CSR eae COR ST eh ia | ales Pa Saalleee eal ebeccc sre2-19 :
| | =
BG Brel | SECA isan] + reales lentey G3 10—10+
20950 | 13.8 | 13.5 | 34.9 | 35.6 | 32.3 | 24.9 | 12.1 7.1 | 21.8 5.8 | 12.2 | 12.4 | T0==10
| | | | | 9— 9
20957 | 11.5 |} 14.0 | 219 | 31.7 | 28.4 | 23.9 | 12.0 (gd) Ie See peenee 10.6 | 10.8 r aah
| lao | | =
aasiaeea aee| seen ai | ee Pal gies!
2999) 0720) | 25:5 | 419) 4205 St | 2607 | 14.105) 7.2) 493°) G51, | 14.9) 1359 . p=
| | ¢ pep
* Least. } Posterior to the notch. ; + Artificially set (2).
We pass now from the species which have a whitish band along the
belly to those which are entirely black. In three instances (G. scam-
moni Cope, indicus Blyth, and brachypterus Cope) it has been shown that
individuals entirely black had the intermaxillze expanded distally so as
to cover the anterior half of the beak. Two other nominal species (G.
macrorhynchus Gray and G. guadaloupensis Gray) are known only from
skulls, but as these have the premaxille expanded we may presume
that the individuals from which they were derived were also entirely
black.
GLOBICEPHALUS INDICUS Blyth.
Globicephalus indicus, Blyth, Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, xx1, p. 358. (ide Blyth);
Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, xxvui1, 1859, p. 490.
This species is only known to me from the account in Vol. xxvut of
the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. The color is stated to be
‘uniform leaden-black, slightly paler underneath.” The intermaxille
are expanded. The dorsal and lumbar vertebre taken together number
one more than is usual in G@. brachypterus and one less than in G. melas,
but this is a character of no value.
The measurements of the exterior are few in number and do not in-
dicate specific distinctness.
Until the type-skeletons in the Calcutta Museum have been more
fully described it will be impossible to determine the validity of this
species.
138 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
GLOBICEPHALUS MACRORHYNCHUS Gray.
Globiocephalus macrorhynchus, Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, 1846, p. 33; Cat.
Seals and Whales, 1866, p. 320.
This species is founded on a single skull, No. 3000, in the Royal Col-
lege of Surgeons, London, to which institution it was presented by
F, D. Bennett. The locality from which it was derived is unknown.
I regret to find that I made no notes upon this skull and have only
my measurements for comparison. As the skullis a youngish one I do
not trust myself to draw any conclusions from the consideration of the
measurements alone.
In his paper on the Delp hinida, Professor Flower is inclined to believe,
though with some hesitation, that the blackfish skulls with broad inier-
maxille all belong to the same species. I have since satisfied myself,
however, that two forins, G. brachypterus Cope and G. scammoni Cope
are perfectly distinct, and the question now arises whether either of
these species is identical with @. macrorhynchus. As I neglected to take
notes upon the type-skull, I am, unfortunately, unable to throw any
light on this question. The measurements which I took are subjoined:
Table of measurements.
GLOBICEPHALUS MACRORHYNCHUS.
| Ai ~ q 4
| Breadth of | & o5
beak— | Q Eaee|
| = +o iH
| ir D2
| | bs Had | 8
| | = os _—
2 | is Re jlan.
o =| 5 ¥ oO Be
2 : . : wn + CSCa-
| Collection. Type of— Loeality. ~ Aira ee ae | fay
| : = ® Sa eS “a | 2 bog
a = I —— Set iro} “3 Rib
© ep eo | qa oe cw | os aK
z es | PE | Me ens tee ool he eal
By go | o “oA SP eps a=
eu aim! & 1a Ea | lpkaey | owe
= | io 43 co lee tS aie)
eC So | ea Sl ce ea eee
= | 2 a= r=) mies
a Wl 6 Be eleee tiles Reet Nees
oO wm | A =) safe | occas |] (28) i)
Betaire = i 2 ban Fi aE PETS |e pe Arce |
H | |
| Om. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm Om
3000 | Roy. Coll. | G. macrorhyn- | South Seas......| Jr. | 58.5 | 30.5 | 24.9 20565) 2958) *1620
| Surg. | ehus. |
’ i ! ' ic i)
iS Extremity | Breadth Temporal A 2 eI
3 of beak to— between— loss. | g eS ee
| | ee a Ox
Ve: e = | 6 oe are
S me ee | & R | A®@
= ir ° > . ~ es, i - 1) ae
. ) a B S| S Fo
hs =| |; @ 5) i o se = | & hi O°
ce) el Salient ee ne 2 ia6 D ' } :
2 ese S oer Sac fmees ge s pox | ok | 8S a
A = Pe, Ba |S | “ab.0 Veet Weepitee |) een, eaxien! 2
= > cS - i) pee & nS oz a
Ei 8 |e) au4 ee a Bead Bolle eels S
o — as a) oo AS {necere A eee al 2 S
A(R oe xs ene hs fe Shee Ale aye: Se] BO 5 ics ae eran a
oo | OS olpesrcylecest ie (ek al eta hrarcel lice) Zing Ube ee ®
_— = > | = oe ° an | ~ way ales SS — ara PS 2
I SO gs eS ese irto |! sent arto eo ecg eon Te FI
= =| D ee hacx S 2) | set. R Ea tre | a a =
aS) o 3 | a 2 Ras] wv 2 o | oO | o e iS
6) Hin ia cs © | Ii Q Fee Ppt lott il A
—— =a ae H ? =| ni. aa a 7 | ae : Oi aor) lea ill ae. fT, oo a een
| Om. | Cm. | Cm. | Cm. | Om. | Om. | Cm. | Cm. |; Om.) Cm, | Om. | Cin. |
2, || | | | | | 6—6, _7—7
3000 |10.4¢ | 19.8 | 40.0 | 41.9 | 41.8] 26.2 | 14.2 | 10.7 | 49.6 | 6.97 135 1 14.7 +8 yee
| | | 3 re
| | | | | |
* Posterior to the noteh. t Actual length; not from end of beak.
GLOBICEPHALUS BRACHYPTERUS. 139
GLOBICEPHALUS SCAMMONI Cope.
Globiocephalus Scammoni, Cope, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1859, p. 21.
This species was made known by Professor Cope from the descrip-
tion, measurements, and drawings of Scammon.
There is in the nationa! collection a skull presented by Scammon
which is presumably the type of the species. This skull I have com-
pared with those of G. brachypterus, and, as already stated, have reached
the conclusion that the differences observable indicate specific distine-
tions between the blackfish of the east and west coasts.
Scammows measurements of the exterior also differ from those
obtained from specimens from the east coast. These differences will
be pointed out when treating of G@. brachyypterus.
GLOBICEPHALUS BRACHYPTERUS Cope.
G. ? sp. nov., Cope, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1866, p. 8.
Globiocephalus brachypterus, Cope, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1876, p. 129.
‘As early as 1866 Professor Cope entertained the opinion that two
distinct species of blackfish occurred on the east coast of the United
States, and in 1876 he was enabled to demonstrate the validity of his
opinion by the acquisition of a complete female specimen from Delaware
Bay. This specimen, with the skull formerly referred to as “ Globio-
cephalus? n. sp.,” became the basis of his Globiocephalus brachypterus.
Recently, as already stated on a previous page, the Smithsonian
Institution has received three skeletons and an additional skall, which in
the opinion of the writer may undoubtedly be referred to the species
under consideration. Two of these skeletons and the extra skull were
obtained by Mr. Joseph Willcox in Osprey, Fla., and the third skel-
eton came from the U. S. Life-Saving station at Dam Neck Mills, near
Cape Henry, Virginia. The Florida skeletons were respectively about
17 and 18 fect long, and the Virginia specimen (a male) measured 15
feet 3 inches in the flesh. The following external measurements were
taken from the Virginia specimen while fresh, by Mr. T. W. Scoilick :
Measurements of blackfish, G. brachypterus, No. 22561, male, from Dam Neck Mills,
Virginia.
Ft. In.
Tip of snout to notch of flukes...:.....-...----.--+-+- aie TRIAS GN Oo SP Ree ies
hip: of snout: to blow holseteso-t 42. sce eae So ee eee sc ees Li OE
Aetprat Gn Olt LOsOY G .a— 2 Sass sade eae So ee Se Sa eet el cee aoe Loe
‘Tipsof snout to anterior bas6 of pectoral -s:...-.-----<--------->---<------ 35
Tip of snout to‘anterior base of dorsal ..---- -22--.----=- ------ -----+ ---<== 3 114
ip osnemh tO anus 2.2 .oc> to 2; rugose. Skull massive. Rostrum long and com-
pressed, its breadth at the middle 11.5 per cent. to 18.8 per cent. of
its length. Frontal plates of the maxillw strongly bent; intermaxille
convex, at wide opening between them opposite the maxillary notch.
Temporal fosse very large and rounded; pterygoid bones meeting in
the median line; vomer extending to the middle of the palate and visi-
ble in the median line; mandible growing gradually attenuated from
behind forwards, not keeled at the symphysis. Symphysis very long.
Measurements of the skull.—(British Museum No. 346a. Type of 8.
compres sus): Total length, 51.1°; length of rostrum, 52.5; breadth
of rostrum at its base, 9.3°"; at its middle, 4.2°"; breadth of intermax-
ille at same point, 2.9°™; breadth between orbits, 16.4°™; length of tem-
poral fossa, 8.6°". (British Museum No. 545c. Type of S. frontatus):
Total length, 51.1™; length of rostrum, 30°; breadth of rostrum at
its base, 10.75; at the middle, 5.2; breadth of intermaxille at same
‘point, 3.6"; breadth across orbits, 193°"; length of temporal fossa,
10.7", (For measurements of the exterior see page 28.)
Habitat.—Indian Ocean. Java. Atlantic Ocean; 1° 14’ 5S. lat., 179
20’ W. long. (Liitken.)
STENO PERSPICILLATUS Peters.
(Plate 7, figs. 1 and 2.)
Form generally like Tursiops tursio. Beak distinctly separated off
from the forehead. Dorsal and pectoral fins faleate. |
Back black, belly white, sides of body and head yellowish white. A
milk-white stripe from the pectoral fin to the eye. Eye surrounded by
a brown ring, from which a narrow brownish-black line goes forward
along the base of the forehead to meet its fellow on the opposite side
of the head. , very small. Vertebral: C. 7; D. 14 (or 15); L. 27; Ca.
49—97 (or 98).
Skull as in P. communis, but the beak relatively shorter and flat, and
the temporal foss smaller. The maxillaries also shorter proximally,
and the mandible less deep between the coronoid process and angle.
Nares very large. All the cervicals united, as are also the last four
caudals. First thirty caudals with chevron bones. Formula of pha-
langes as follows: I, 1; Il, 6; If], 4; IV, 2. The two distal pha-
langes of fingers 2 and 3 and the outermost of finger 4 very imper-
fectly ossified.
Measurements of the exterior.— 6 adult (type). Total length, 72 inches
(182.9); length of mouth, 3.5 inches (8.8) ; length from tip of snout
to beginning of dorsal, 27.5 inches (69.8™); length of pectoral (anterior
margin), 8 inches (20.3°™); vertical height of dorsal, 6 inches (13.2°™) ;
breadth of flukes, 18.5 inches (47°).
Measurements of the skull_—dé adult (type). Total length, 33.3;
length of beak, 14°"; breadth of* beak at base, 9.5°"; at middle, 5.7°™;
breadth between orbits, 16.5°"; length of tooth-line, 12.7°™; depth of
temporal fossa, 2.6°™.
13. ORCELLA Gray.
Rostrum short and broad; rostral portion of intermaxillze broad.
Pterygoids widely separated from each other. Symphysis of mandi-
ble short. Teeth 12 to 14; small, conical, and acute, occupying nearly
the whole length of the rostrum. Vertebrie, 62 to 63.
Head globose; beak wanting. Dorsal fin small, faleate. Pectoral
fins small, broad at the base, and obtusely pointed. Color slate-gray
above, lighter below, with or without irregular streaks.
182 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
ORCELLA BREVIROSTRIS Owen.
(Plate 38, figs. 1 and 2.)
Head convex from the blow-hole to the upper lip. Pectoral fins tri
-angular—one-half as broad as long. Dorsal fin rising in the center of
the back, comparatively small, faleate, obtusely pointed. “The linc
of the back is sharp from this fin down to the tail. The ventral line is
the same for some inches behind the anus.” ;
‘Color dark slaty-blue above, almost black; « little paler below,
without any streaks or marks” (Anderson and Sterndale).
Length from snout to caudal notch about 7 feet.
Habitat—Bay of Bengal; Vizagapatam; Singapore.
ORCELLA FLUMINALIS Anderson.
Like O. brevirostris, but with rather smaller, lower, and more falcate
dorsal fin. Head less anteriorly bulging. Pectoral fins shorter and
broader.
Color pale bluish above, white underneath, with numerous streaks,
as in Grampus griseus (Anderson and Sterndale).
Length, 7 to 74 feet.
Habitat.—Irawaddy River, Burmah, 300 to 900 miles from the sea.
14. GRAMPUS Gray.
tostrum moderate, expanded in front of the maxillary notches, and
tapering thence to an obtuse termination. ‘Triangular area in front of
the superior nares raised above the level of the surrounding bones, and
convex. Rostral portion of the intermaxille broad and moderately
rounded. Symphysis of mandible short. Pterygoid bones in contact:
Teeth 2 to 7, in the mandible only, and confined to the region of the
symphysis. Vertebrae, 68.
Head globose, with slightly protuberant lips; beak wanting; mouth
oblique. Dorsal fin prominent and faleate. Pectoral fins rather nar-
row, elongated, and falcate. Color slate-gray, mottled, and very irreg-
ularly streaked.
GRAMPUS GRISEUS (Cuvier).
(Plate 39, figs. 1 and 2. )
General form somewhat similar to that of Globicephalus. Head
globose, with a slight indication of a beak; mouth oblique; lower jaw
shorter than the upper. Dorsal fin high and falcate; pectoral fins fal-
cate, elongated. Flukes narrow antero posteriorly.
Back, dorsal fin and flukes dark gray or blackish, more or less tinged
with purple. Pectoral fins blackish and mottled with gray. Head
and anterior half of body light gray, varied in hue and tinged with
15. GLOBICEPHALUS—G. MELAS. 183
yellow. Belly grayish white. Body marked with numerous and con-
spicuous light-colored, irregular, and unsymmetrically-placed stri.
Young.—Dark gray above, grayish white below. Head whitish,
strongly tinged with yellow. Side with five or more narrow, vertical,
and nearly equidistant lines.
Teeth 4 to; Vertebre: C.7; D 12; L. 19; Ca. 30 = 68.
Skull massive. Rostrum expanded in front of the maxillary notches,
obtusely pointed; its length one-half the entire length of the skull.
Intermaxille moderately convex on the rostrum; the prenareal area
elevated ; the spaces between the inner free margin become wider
rather suddenly near the extremity of the rostrum. Vomer extending
nearly to the extremity of the rostrum, not usually visible on the
palate. Pterygoids large and prominent; largely in contact in the
median line. Temporal fossze oval, their wall largely covered by the
squamosal.
Measurements of the extertor.—Adult 2. Total length, 126 inches
(320; length of mouth, 104 inches (26.7°"); tip of snout to anterior
base of dorsal fin, 47 inches; length of pectoral fin, 233 inches; vertical
height of ‘dorsal fin, 16 inches; breadth of flukes, 29 inches.
Measurements of the skull.—(U.S. National Museum, No.15890. Adult.
Cape Cod, Massachusetts.) Total length, 53°; length of rostrum,
26; breadth of rostrum at base, 20.5°™; breadth of rostrum at its
middle, 12.8°"; breadth of intermaxillee at same point, 9°"; breadth
between orbits, 34.2; length of temporal fossa, 13.3°".
Habitat.—North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans; North Sea;
Mediterranean; coast of the United States, Cape Cod; Atlantie City,
N. J.; Massachusetts; Cape of Good Hope (G. richardsoni Gray);
California (G. stearnstt Dall); Japan (G. sakamata Gray).
15. GLOBICEPHALUS Gray.
Rostrum short and very broad. Tostral portion of intermaxille flat
and very broad (sometimes covering the entire anterior half of tife ros-
trum). Symphysis of mandible short. Pterygoid bones large and in
contact. Teeth few and large, 7 to 11, confined to the anterior half
of the rostrum. Vertebrie, 57 to 60.
Head globular, with a rounded protuberance on the lip; beak want-
ing; mouth oblique. Dorsal fin very long, low, and thick. Pectoral
fins narrow and very long. Color black.
GLOBICEPHALUS MELAS ------ ------+----- 10,13 | griseus.€Delphinus) .........-.-...-.----- Palen
Wel phinusteeee sass eoee 11, 25, 28, 44, 160 (Grampus) ...--------- 125, 131, 132, 182
delphis (Delphinus) -10, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, | guadaloupensis (Globicephalus)...-.-..--. 137, 141
54, 55, 56, 59,85, 160 | eubernator (Lagenorhynehus) -.---.----- 83, 85, 86
destructor (Orca) ...--------------------- 143, 144 | euianensis (Delphinus) .-----.--..------- 13,17
dickici (Eutropia) ....-...----------.---- 112 (Sotaliayiecaeecece. oes 47, 18,19, 155
dorides (Clymene) ..-..------------------ 63, 64
(Prodelphinus) ..-..------------- 61 He
((Qursio)eseeeee- eae eE eee eee 63 :
daris(Clymoriaye ata heroes oer ten 66, 68 hastatus (Delphinus) Tera ee hoe = 198
(Delplntns)4chece.s sees ee 68,73 | heavisidei (Cephalorhynehus) .--.-- 108, 109, 110,
(Prodelphinus)....---. 62, 63, 66, 67, 70, 71, 164 111,176
dubius (Delphinus) .--...-----.---------- 68 we? (Delphinus)...-..-------++---- 108
(Prodelpbinus) ......<+-s--c-+-+=- 61, 63, 66 hectori (Cephalorhynchus) ..--...----- 112,177
(Mlectrag sae cee ceteeeic ew ete eee es 112
i: iB
a eae (Globiocephalus) -....--------- ze | inerassatus (Spherocephalus) .......---. 133, 135
Geiss ese ae adee ondree saccocAdssegos0 : hee : :
electra (Lagenorhynchus) ...84, 100, 101, 102, 103, BoC eee Warps egos : eo wee
A ‘ 117, 168, 173 | intermedia (Feresa) ......--..--------- 107,175
eschrichtii (Delphinus) ..-......--.-..--.83, poe | (OE) le ee 107
cuphresyap (Eradelpbiaus) ...-61, 63, 64, 67, oe | infomuediag (Delphintay. tel. b oka: 133
euphrosynoides (Clymenia) Bre siereisniensinisia 63, G4 | (Globicephalus). ......--.--- 141
(Prodelphinus)-...-.-.--- 61 |
eurynome (Delphinus) ..--..--.---------- 32 | Tt
(EGESIO) cae ace See ee 37, 38, 39 |
WULO Pia ce Sask o-2Sso sees aoe aero 10g | janira (Delphinus) ..--.---.---..--------- 45, 52
eutropia (Cephalorhynchus)....11, 112, 113, 178 |
(Delphinus):2- se-=----seeseecaes 112, 113 | K.
(AMEND) )sSesgeSaccccostaccasoccas a IP Vite ee
kinins (Delphimus) <2 See serismiee ais 146, 147, 148, 149
Fr. | kurrachiensis (Neomeris)-..--.---- 114, 115, 116, 179
|
Feresa.....-- SRS DCO BOSE ROTEL ACO On Ose Es 107,175 L
fitzroyi (Delphinus)..--.-.--------------- 87 | :
(Lagenorhynchus).....--84,87, 104,170 | Lagenorhynchus....-....-.-----. 11, 83, 102, 168
Amin alise(Oxrcella)e ssn cee eee eeeere 4 1s2 | Lagenorhynchus de Castelnau ......-.-.- 84, 85
| . = . -
fluviatilis (Delphinus)...--..---.--------- 17 | lateralis (Delphinus).-....-..-..----..--. 65, 84
(Sotalia). ooo cee 17, 18, 19, 20, 156 (Lagenorhynchus) -.....--.-.--- 65, 84
forsteri (Delphinus) .........------ 45, 49, 51, 52, 57 (Prodelphinus).....-...----- G5, 66, 164
freenatus (Delphinus).....-.------------- 68,166 | latifrons (Lagenorhynchus) -..--.-....--- 84, 90, 91
(Prodelphinus) ----- 62, 63, 67, 6S, 70,71, | lentiginosus (Delphinus)..-.--..--..---.- 15
5 : 73,79, 166 | lentiginosa (Sotalia))ce--ceeaees 15, 16, 21, 22,155
frontalis (Delphinus) .-...--.-----.-.---- 6g | leucas (Delphinus)-----------..--.-.--.-- 146, 147
(Prodelphinus)).--5-----2-42-—- 62, 73 (Delphinapterus)-.--...... E46, 149, 187
frontatus (Delphinus) .-...-.--.--..----- 24,27 | leucorhamphe (Dauphin) ..-....---..---. 78
(Steno ines sseeeeats- ease 24,30,157 | Leucorhamphus.......-.---------+++++--- 77
fulvofasciatus (Delphinus)..-..--.-.--- 45,49, 50,51 | leucorhamphus (Delphinus) ---..--..--.- 78
fusiformis (Delphinus)..--.....-------- 84,100,103 | Leucopleurus ....-..--....--..----------- 83
(Lagenorhynchus) ..---------- 101,102 | leucopleurus (Delphinus) ........-------- 83, 85, 86
fusns: (Delphinns)sse senses eee eee 46, 47,49 | lineata (Phociena) ----..-.---. 117, 118, 119, 120, 121
Steno) cca cohen eee eee 27,28 | longidens (Clymenia) -...---..----------- 96
(Delp hints) eaeeer eerie 96, 99, 100
a. (Lagenorhynchus)------.-..---- 88, 89
| longirostris (Delphinus) -.--...--.50, 38, 59, 161
gadamu (Delphinus) .......--..---...-... ish (Budelphinus) 2 s2e2 -coas2 << 58
(Sotalia): a2se=2e225- 11, 13, 14, 15, 16,154 | (Prodelphinus) -..---. 62, 75, 76, 166
evi (RanNSiODS) pease eee eae 43, 44,160 |
Pladiator (Orca) snes sen ase eae tea 187 M.
Gilobicephalin 2s sae ee eee eee eet 10 |
Globicephalus? .. 22.2. ccunss cea seen eee 10, 28 | macrorhynchus (Globicephalus) ..135, 138, 186
globiceps (Delphinus) = 2. <----.-- ? +s
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. X
Fig. 1. Tursiops gillii Dall.
(From Scammon, Marine Mammalia, 1874, p. 102. Approximate outlines.)
Fic. 2. Tursiops gilli Dall.
(From the type-skull, No 12054, in the U. S. National Museum.)
GENUS TURSIOPS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XI
Fie. 1. COMMON DOLPHIN.
Delphinus delphis Linné.
(From a sketch by J. H. Emerton.)
Fic. 2. COMMON DOLPHIN.
Delphinus delphis Linné.
(From Van Beneden and Gervais, Ostéographie des Cétacés, 1868-'79, pl. 39, fig. 3.)
Fig. 3. COMMON DOLPHIN.
Delphinus delphis Linné.
(From Van Beneden and Gervais, Ostéographie des Cétacés, 1868-'79, pl. 39, fig. 3.)
GENUS DELPHINUS.
U. S. NATI@NAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XII
Fig. 1. Delphinus capensis Gray.
(From Gray, Spicilegia Zoologica, 1828, pl. 2, fig. 1.)
Fic. 2. Delphinus longirostris Cuvier.
(From Van Beneden and Gervais, Ostéographie des Cétacés, 1868-'79, pl. 39, fig. 10.)
GENUS DELPHINUS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XIll
Fie. 1. Delphinus roseiventris Wagner.
(From Jacquinot et Pucheran, Zoologie du Voyage de |’Astrolabe et Zélée, 1853, pl. 22, fig. 2.)
Fig. 2. Delphinus roseiventris Wagner.
(From Van Beneden and Gervais, Ostéographie des Cétacés, 1868-'79, pl. 38, fig. 6a.)
GENUS DELPHINUS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XIV
Fie. 1. Prodelphinus ceruleo-albus (Meyen).
(From Meyen, Nova Acta Academize Casareze Leopoldino-Carolinze Naturee Curiosum, xvi, 1832, pl. 43, fig. 2.)
LAAAAA DY ;
ae hs POMMEIAELI SRE Li ELD
a
Xx . < ae a aoe so
Fig. 2. Prodelphinus cceruleo-albus (Meyen).
(From Schreber’s Sdugethiere, pl. 364.)
GENUS PRODELPHINUS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XV
Fic. 1. Prodelphinus euphrosyne (Gray).
(From Pucheran, Revue et Magasin de Zoologie, 2d series, viii, 1856, pl. 25. D. marginatus.)
Fie. 2. Prodelphinus euphrosyne (Gray).
(From Gray, Synopsis of Whales and Dolphins, 1868, pl. 22.)
Fie. 3. Prodelphinus (?) lateralis (Peale).
(From Peale, U. S. Exploring Expedition, Mammalogy and Ornithology, Atlas, pl. 8, fig. 1.)
GENUS PRODELPHINUS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 386, PL. XVI
Fia. 1. Prodelphinus malayanus (Lesson).
(From Jacquinot et Pucheran, Zoologie du Voyage de |’Astrolabe et Zélée, Mammiféres et Oiseaux, Atlas, pl. 21,
fig. 2. Dauphin a petites pectorales.)
( So
S
ee
\
Fia. 2. Prodelphinus malayanus (Lesson).
(From Schlegel, Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der Zoologie, 1841, pl. 1, fig. 2.)
GENUS PRODELPHINUS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XVII
Fie. 1. Prodelphinus attenwatus (Gray),
(From Gray, Catalogue of Whales and Dolphins, 1866, p, 399, fig. 101. C. punctata )
Fia.2. Prodelphinns attenwatus (Gray).
(From Gray, Synopsis of the Whales and Dolphins, 1868, pl. 28.)
GENUS PRODELPHINUS.
r v
e
ahd
ae
‘S
NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XVII!
Fie. 1. SPOTTED DOLPHIN.
Prodelphinus plagiodon (Cope).
(From a photograph taken on board the U. S. Fish Commission Steamer Albatross.)
Fig. 2. SPOTTED DOLPHIN.
Prodelphinus plagiodon (Cope).
(From the type-skull, No. 3884, in the U. S. National Museum.)
GENUS PRODELPHINUS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XIX
Fie. 1. Prodelphinus frenatus (F. Cuvier).
(From Ltitken, K. Danske Videnskabs Selskabs Skrifter, 6te Raekke, v. 1889. Two varieties. The form of the
body is conventional.)
Fig. 2. Prodelphinus frenatus (F. Cuvier).
(From Gray, Synopsis of the Whales and Dolphins, 1868, pl. 25.)
Genus PRODELPHINUS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM
BULLETIN 36, PL.
XX
Fia. 1. Prodelphinus frenatus (F. Cuvier).
Young.
(From F. Cuvier, Histoire naturelle des Cétacés, 1836, pl. 10, fig. 1.)
Fic. 2. Prodelphinus longirostris (Gray).
(From Gray, Synopsis of the Whales and Dolphins, 1868, pl. 25.
GENUS PRODELPHINUS.
Delphinus microps.)
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36 PL. XXI
Fic. 1. Tursio peronii (Lacépéde).
(From Gray, Synopsis of the Whales and Dolphins, 1868, pl. 15, fig. 1.)
Fia.2. Tursio peronii (Lacépéde).
(From Van Beneden and Gervais, Ostéographie, pl. 38, fig. 3.)
GeNus TURSIO.
a
Soars
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXII
Fie. 1. PACIFIC RIGHT-WHALE PORPOISE.
Tursio borealis (Peale).
(From Scammon, Marine Mammalia, 1874, pl. 19, fig. 4.)
Fig.2. PACIFIC RIGHT-WHALE PORPOISE.
Tursio borealis (Peale).
(From skull No. 8160, in the U. S. National Museum.)
GENUS TURSIO.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XxXiIll
Fic. 1. STRIPED DOLPHIN.
Lagenorhynchus acutus Gray.
(From a photograph in the U. S. National Museum, of an individual captured at Woods Hoil, Mass.)
Fig. 2. STRIPED DOLPHIN.
Lagenorhynchus acutus Gray.
(From Van Beneden and Gervais, Ostéographie des Cétacés, 1868-'79, pl. 36, fig. 4.)
GeENus LAGENORHYNCHUS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXIV
Fie. 1. Lagenorhynchus fitzroyi (Waterhouse).
(From Waterhouse, Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle, Mammalia, 1839, pl. 10.)
oc Se ES
: —<————
—————————
Fic. 2. Lagenorhynchus thicolea Gray.
(From Gray, Synopsis of the Whales and Dolphins, 1868, pl. 36.)
GENUS LAGENORHYNCHUS.
one
a
a are Al
~o. PL “13 i Raye
= 9 . ie
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXV
Fie.1. Lagenorhynchus cruciger (A Orbigny et Gervais).
(From d’Orbigny and Gervais, Voyage dans |’Amérique Méridionale, ix, 1847, pl. 21, fig. 4.)
Fig. 2. Lagenorhynchus cruciger (V@Orbigny et Gervais).
(From Van Beneden and Gervais, Ostéographie des Cétacés, 1868-'79, pl. 36, fig. 3.)
Fie.3. Lagenorhynchus superciliosus (Schlegel).
(From Schlegel, Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der Zoologie, 1841, pl. 1, fig. 3.)
GENUS LAGENORHYNCHUS.
; hate VO te ee
Loe J
n eaves _
an 9 Wi avd \
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXVI
Fig. 1. WHITE-BEAKED DOLPHIN.
Lagenorhynchus albirostris Gray.
(From Liitken, Kgl. Danske Videnskabs Selskabs Skrifter, 6t¢ Raekke, iv, 1887, pl. 2.)
Fic. 2. WHITE-BEAKED DOLPHIN.
Lagenorhynchus albirostris Gray.
(From Gray, Synopsis of the Whales and Dolphins, 1868, pl. 11.)
Genus LAGENORHYNCHUS.
: ¥ Ei)
a |
Pees i, foe e
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXVII
Fie. 1. Lagenorhynchus obliquidens Gill.
(From Scammon, Marine Mammalia, 1874, pl. 19, fig. 2.)
Fig. 2. Lagenorhynchus obliquidens Gill.
(From the type-skull, No. 1963, in the U. S. National Museum.)
GeENus LAGENORHYNCHUS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXVIII
Fic. 1. Lagenorhynchus electra Gray.
(From Peale, U. S. Exploring Expedition, Mammalogy and Ornithology, Atlas, pl. 5, fig. 2.)
Fia. 2. Lagenorhynchus electra Gray.
(From Gray, Synopsis of the Whales and Dolphins, 1868, pl. 14.)
Genus LAGENORHYNCHUS.
wy
ee
ee. Pace (ers,
fh hoe
ah,
'
U. s. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXIX
Fie. 1. Lagenorhynchus obscurus (Gray).
(From Gray, Spicilegia Zoologica, 1828, pl. 2, fig. 3.)
Fic. 2. Lagenorhynchus obscurus (Gray).
(From Gray, Synopsis of the Whales and Dolphins, 1868, pl. 16.)
GeENuS LAGENORHYNCHUS.
ia
ie sa
P wes ‘ ae my me . hiaey
ib , / “" as ce aa is ™
t be ee SS
Sees
fs
'
i's
{
5
5
~
¥,
aaa
j
_
¥
7
i
‘
i
€
Lae
}
f
Eo ee
een ‘ -
cn, aay
\ 7a’ =
og DANTE He Ne Fete,
; ee
; ras *
‘a
7
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXX
Fie. 1. Sagmatias amblodon Cope.
(From the type-skull, No. 3887. in the U. S. National Museum.)
Fig. 2. Feresa intermedia Gray.
(From Gray, Synopsis of the Whales and Dolphins, 1868, pl. 8.)
GENERA SAGMATIAS AND FERESA.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXxXI
Fie. 1. Cephalorhynchus heavisidei Gray.
(From P. J. Van Beneden, Bulletin de I'Académie Royale de Belgique, 2d series, xxxvi, 1873, pp. 32-40, 1 pl.)
Fie. 2. Cephalorhynchus heavisidei Gray.
(From Van Beneden and Gervais, Ostéographie des Cétacés, 1868-’79, pl, 36, fig. 1.)
GENUS CEPHALORHYNCHUS.
5 7
7 U a
me ik aie
i? ae
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXXII
Fie. 1. Cephalorhynchus albifrons True.
(From Hector, Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, v, 1873, pl. 3.)
Fia. 2. Cephalorhynchus albifrons True.
(From Hector, Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, v, 1873.)
GENUS CEPHALORHYNCHUS.
ag?
F
"
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXxXiIll
Fic. 1. Cephalorhynchus hectori (Van Beneden).
(From Van Beneden, Bulletin de l’Académie Royale de Belgique, 3d series, i, 1881, pl. 2.)
=
Fie. 2. Cephalorhynchus eutropia (Gray).
(From Gray, Synopsis of the Whales and Dolphins, 1868, pl. 34)
GENUS CEP! VTORHYNCHUS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXXIV
Fie. 1. NAMENO-JUO.
Neomeris phoceenoides (Cuvier).
(From Schlegel, Fauna Japonica, 1850, pl. 25, fig. 1.)
Fig. 2. NAMENO-JUO.
Neomeris phoceenoides (Cuvier).
(From Van Beneden and Gervais, Ostéographie des Cétacés, 1868-'79, p!. 56, fig. 1.)
Genus NEOMERIS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXXV
ROCA aul
Fic. 1. HARBOR PORPOISE; HERRING HOG.
Phoceena communis Lesson.
(From a photograph in the U. S. National Museum.)
Fig. 2. HARBOR PORPOISE ; HERRING HOG.
Phocena communis Lesson.
(From Van Beneden and Gervais, Ostéographie des Cétacés, 1868-'79, pl. 56, fig. 10.)
GENUS PHOCAENA.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXXVI
Fig. 1. Phocena spinipinnis Burmeister.
(From Burmeister, Anales del Museo Publico de Buenos Aires, i, 1864-'69, pl. 23, fig. 2.)
Fia. 2. Phocena spinipinnis Burmeister.
(From Burmeister, Anales de! Museo Publico de Buenos Aires, i, 1864-69, pl. 24, fig. 1.)
GENUS PHOCAENA.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXXVII
Fic. 1. DALL’S HARBOR PORPOISE.
Phocena dallii True.
(From a drawing by William H. Dall.)
Fie. 2. DALL’S HARBOR PORPOISE.
Phoceena dallii True.
(From a drawing by William H. Dall of the type-skull, No 21762, in the U. S. National Museum.)
GENUS PHOCAENA.
. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXXVIII
Fig. 1. Orcella brevirostris (Owen).
(From Van Beneden and Gervais, Ostéographie des Cétacés, 1868-'79, p. 552.)
Fic. 2. Orcella brevirostris (Owen).
(From Owen, Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, vi, 1869, pl. 9, fig. 3.)
GENUS ORCELLA.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XXXIX
Fic. 1. GRAMPUS
Grampus griseus (Cuvier)
(From Flower, Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, viii, 1872, pl. 1, fig. 1.)
Fie. 2. GRAMPUS.
Grampus griseus (Cuvier).
(From Van Beneden and Gervais, Ostéographie des Cétacés, 1868-79, pl. 54, fig. 7.)
GENUS GRAMPUS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XL
Fie. 1. COMMON BLACKFISH.
Globicephalus melas (Traill).
(From Murie, Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, viii, 1873, pl. 30, fig. 1.)
Fic. 2. COMMON BLACKFISH.
Globicephalus melas (Traill).
(From Gray, Catalogue of the Whales and Dolphins, 1866, p. 316, fig. 62.)
Genus GLOBICEPHALUS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XLI
Fic.1. Globicephalus brachypterus Cope.
(From Cope, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 1876, p. 131.) -
GENUS GLOBICEPHALUS.
ai. :
é i ot i
ad ae
ate
a)
Mei
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XLII
Fie. 1. NORTH PACIFIC BLACKFISH.
Globicephalus scammoni Cope.
(From Scammon, Marine Mammalia, 1874, pl. 16, fig. 1.)
Fie. 2. NORTH PACTFIC BLACKFISH.
Globicephalus scammoni Cope.
(From skull No, 9074, in the U. S. National Museum.)
GENUS GLOBICEPHALUS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XLIII
Fia. 1. Globicephalus sieboldii Gray.
(From Schlegel, Fauna Japonica, Mammalia, 1850, pl. 27, fig. 1.)
Ae
0
Fic. 2. Globicephalus sieboldii Gray.
(From Schlegel, Fauna Japonica, Mammalia, 1850, pl. 27, fig. 1.)
GENUS GLOBICEPHALUS.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XLIV
Fic. 1. Psewdorea crassidens (Owen).
(From Reinhardt, Pseudorca crassidens, Ray Society, 1866, p. 191.)
Fic. 2. Pseudorea crassidens (Owen).
(From Van Beneden and Gervais, Ostéographie des Cétacés, 1868-'79, pl. 50, fig. 7.)
GENUS PSEUDORCA.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XLV
Fie. 1. KILLER WHALE.
Orca gladiator (Lacépéde)
(From Liitken, Kg!. Danske Videnskabs Selskabs Skrifter, 6te Raekke iv, 1887, p!. 1.)
Fic. 2. Orca gladiator (Lacépéde).
(From Liitken, Kgl. Danske Videnskabs Selskabs Skrifter, 6te Raekke, iv, 1887, p. 372, fig. 9.)
GENUS ORCA.
U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XLVI
Fic. 1. WHITE WHALE.
Delphinapterus leucas (Pallas).
(From a photograph of a specimen received by the Smithsonian Institution.)
Fie. 2. WHITE WHALE.
Delphinapterus leucas (Pallas).
(From Van Beneden and Gervais, Ostéographie des Cétacés, 1868-'79, pl. 44, fig. 2.)
— : a
Smee ee IEEE ETO ED EA LD
. LO
—
bs)
Fic. 3. Delphinapterus kingii (Gray).
(From Gray, Synopsis of the Whales and Dolphins, 1868, pl. 7.)
Genus DELPHINAPTERUS.
U. S. NATIONAL. MUSEUM BULLETIN 36, PL. XLVII
Fie. 1. NARWHAL. Male.
Monodon monoceros Linné.
(From Bell’s British Quadrupeds, 2d editicn, 1874, p. 435.)
Fie. 2. NARWHAL. Male.
Monodon monoceros Linné.
(From Bell’s British Quadrupeds, 2d edition, 1874, p. 439.)
MLIBR«
er NEW YORK
GENUS MONODON.
wn
+
aN
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES
win
3 9443