No. 4. — Observations on the type specimen of the fossil cetacean 

 Anoplonassa forcipata Cope. By Frederick VV. True. 



I have recently had an opportunity of examining the type of the re- 

 markable fossil cetacean Anoplonassa forcipata Cope, belonging to the 

 Museum of Comparative Zoology. This specimen, on which the species 

 was founded by Cope in 1869, 1 consists of the distal portion of a mandi- 

 ble, 191 mm. long. In the original description, Cope remarked that it 

 was obtained, with remains of Mastodon, " not far from Savannah, Geor- 

 gia." In 1890 he stated that it was from the " phosphatic deposits" of 

 South Carolina. 2 His original description and figures are excellent, but 

 the copies of the latter, published on a reduced scale in 1890, do not rep- 

 resent the specimen accurately. Faithful copies were published in Van 

 Beneden and Gervais's Osteography of the Cetacea. 3 



Few cetologists have published any critical remarks on this interest- 

 ing species and probably fewer still have ever seen the type and only 

 known specimen. Cope, the original describe!*, was long in doubt as to 

 its affinities, and, indeed, seems never to have come to a conclusion re- 

 garding them. 



In 1869 he thought its relationships were with the "aberrant cetacea." 

 "The nearest types," he remarked, "appear to be on the one hand Si- 

 renia, and on the other, Squalodon." 4 In 1890 he actually placed it 

 among the Sirenia, in the family Halitheriidae, 5 but cautiously remarked, 

 " it is by no means certain that it belongs here, and it may be a Ceta- 

 cean." 



His remarks five years later (1895) indicate that he was then con- 

 vinced that it was a cetacean and that it might be more or less closely 

 related to the ziphioids. In describing his new genus Pelycorhamphus, 

 which he assigns to the Choneziphiidae, he adds : 



1 Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, 11, p. 189, Plate 5. 



2 Amer. Nat., 24, p. 700, Fig. 2. This apparent discrepancy may not be a real 

 one, as Savannah is very close to the boundary line of South Carolina. 



3 Osteograpliie des Ce'taces, 1880, p. 386, text-fig. 



4 Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, 11, p. 189. 



5 Amer. Nat., 24, Plate 700, Fig. 2. 

 vol. li. — No. 4 7 



