138 True On South American Delphmidce. 



the same form and an equal number of teeth. He considers, 

 however, that it is distinguishable by the color and the shape 

 of the head. So far as the latter is concerned, it will be seen 

 by consulting Bull. 36, U. S. Nat. Mus., p. 88, where the out 

 line of the head of the type of L. fitzroyi is given, that Water- 

 house's figure is not likely to be correct in this particular. The 

 difference in color is considerable and constitutes a sufficient 

 reason for regarding L. posidonia as a separate species, though 

 it could be wished that the sketch of L. fitzroyi had more the 

 appearance of accuracy. It should be noted that L. posidonia 

 and L. fitzroyi are from localities on the coast of Chili separated 

 by about 450 miles. 



"Phocaena d'orbignyi Philippi" (1893, p. 10) "(Delphinus cruciger 

 D'Orb. non Quoy et Gaim.)." 



Dr. Philippi regards it necessary to rename the Delphinus 

 cruciger of d'Orbigny (1847) on account of its being preoccu 

 pied by D. cruciger Quoy and Gaimard (1824). As I explained 

 in 1889,* Quoy and Gaimard's species was one of those founded 

 on porpoises "vus en mer et dessines a distance." I do not 

 consider it, therefore, as having any validity. Such being the 

 case, it seems to me that D. cruciger d'Orbigny and Gervais 

 may be allowed to stand. 



"Phocaena lunata (Delphinus) Lesson" (1393, p. 11, pi. 3, fig. 3). 



This name was applied by Lesson f to a kind of porpoise seen 

 in the bay of Concepcion, Chili. He remarks: "We were un 

 able to kill a single individual." In view of this statement, it 

 seems to me that the species has no status. 



"Phocaena cruciger (Delphinus) Quoy and Gaimard" (1893, p. 11, pi. 3, 

 figs. 4 (bivittata) and 5). 



This species, and the D. bivittata of Lesson, which Dr. Phil 

 ippi cites in the same connection, are among those "vus en mer 



*Bull. 36, U. S. Nat. Mus., p. 91. 



|- Voyage of the Coquilk, Zoology, I, 1826, p. 182. 



