686 GENUS HALICHOERUS. 



gebildert 1st." . . . Keferriug now to Houttuyn,* we find this 

 statement : "Fig. 6, [pi. xi] is die van eeii Zee-Hond, welken de 

 Hooggeleerde Heer ALBINUS, in 't Jaar 1748, den 24 February, 

 te Leiden, op de Vertoonplaats der Ontleedkunde, in myn by- 

 zyu heeft laaten opeuen" (1. c., p. 16). Later (1. c., pp. 28,29) 

 be gives a description of the specimen here referred to as dis- 

 sected in bis presence by Professor Albinus, where he says, 

 "De Heer ALBINUS heeft in den Zee-Hond, bier voor in Fig. 6 

 ["pi. xi, fig. 6," in the margin] afgebeeld, onder anderen, bet 

 volgende opgemeckt," citing at this point, in a footnote, "An- 

 not. AcacL Libr. Ill, Cap. XV." Before turning to Albinus's 

 account it may be well to state that Miiller's and Houttuyn's 

 plates here cited are identical, even to the notation, and that 

 Miiller's description is merely a slightly abridged translation of 

 Houttuyn's account.t 



On referring to Albinus, we find not only a very full and 

 lucid account of the external and some other characters of the 

 specimen Houttuyn saw him dissect, but also the original of 

 both Houttuyn's and Miiller's figures ! Albinus's figure differs 

 from the others only in being much more finely executed. But 

 besides the figure copied by Houttuyn, Albinus gives several 

 detail figures, which demonstrate that the specimen could not 

 have been Halichcerus grypus. Albinus's description shows him 

 to have been not only one of the most accomplished anatomists 



* Natuurlyke Historic of uitvoerige Beschryving der Dieren, Planten, en 

 Miueraalen, Volgens het Sanienstel van deu Heer Linnaeus. Met naauwkeu- 

 rige Afbeeldingen. Eerste Deels, Tweede Stuk. Vervolg der Zoogende Die- 

 reu. Te Amsterdam. By F. Houttuyn, M D CC LXI. 



t Since writing the above I have met with a reference to Scopoli's Pusa 

 by Hermann, in his elaborate account of the Monk Seal of the Mediter- 

 ranean, in which he criticises severely Scopoli's absurd diagnosis, and sug- 

 gests explanations of some of Scopoli's erroneous characters. As Hermann 

 (Beschiiftigungen der Berlinischen Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde, 

 4 Band, 1779, p. 464, footnote) intimates, his " Pedes .... postici 

 connati in pinnam sexlobani" is based on a very stupid misunderstanding 

 of Miiller's figure, in which only the upper edge of the left hind nipper is 

 seen above the right one. Although the shading renders the figure per- 

 fectly intelligible, Scopoli evidently counted this upper edge of the left 

 hind flipper as the sixth lobe of a single appendage, the whole forming his 

 six-lobed " pinna ". If we may suppose the transposition of two words 

 ("incisores" and " canini") by typographical error in Scopoli's dental for- 

 mula, the rendering would be correct, namely, Deutes canini quatuor, inci- 

 sor -es supra sex, infra quatuor. But this we fear is lenient judgment, al- 

 though it would seem that Scopoli must have known better than to delib- 

 erately ascribe ten canines to any mammal. 



