True On South American Delphinidce. 139 



et dessines si distance." They do not appear to me to merit seri 

 ous consideration. F. Cuvier very justly remarks regarding 

 these and other similar species: 



These dolphins having been seen by trained men, by obser 

 vers whose experience is the result of long practice, promise 

 some day to really enrich natural history; but until they have 

 been found again and their skins have been collected, so that 

 their principal parts can be studied, we can only regard them 

 as probable types of species destined to be established at some 

 time more or less near.* 



The object of assigning this species both to Phoccena and to 

 Delphinus, or what is intended thereby, is not clear. In the 

 index it is cited under both genera. 



"Phocsena obtusata Philippi" (1893, p. 12, pi. 3, fig. 1). 



This remarkable species is quite unlike any porpoise with 

 which I am acquainted, especially as regards coloration. As no 

 part of the skeleton is figured or described, it is impossible to 

 decide whether the species really belongs in the genus Phoccena. 

 Certainly the pattern of coloration is very different from that 

 of any other species of the genus. The shape of the fins and 

 head suggest relationship with Cephalorhynchus, but the color- 

 pattern does not agree. Further information regarding this 

 species will be received with much interest. The size of Dr. 

 Philippi's specimen would suggest that it was not fully adult. 



"Delphinapterus leucorrhamphus (Delphinus) Pron" (1893, p. 15, 

 pi. 4, figs. 2 and 3). 



Dr. Philippi quite properly inquires why Lacepede changed 

 the name leucorrhamphus in Peron's manuscript to peronii. So 

 it was, however, and the latter name under rules now generally 

 adopted is binding. The generic name Delphinapterus , how 

 ever, was originally applied by Lac6pede to the white whale or 

 beluga. Later, Lesson transferred it to leucorrhamphus or 



*Hist. Nat. des Ce"tac6s, 1836, p. 225. 



