STENO ROSTKATIJS. 25 



tlio Stuffed skins wliich had been associated with the skulls in the 

 Paris ^luseuni 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 speciftcall}' identical with the skulls 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 F. 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 

 dififlculty. 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 187G 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 DelpMnus. 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 uofc specifically identical with, it is certaiuly very closely allied to Slow 

 rostratus. (Characters and Divisions, p. 486.) 



I examined the type-skull in 1887, through the kindness of Dr. Ililgen- 

 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 it is 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. Tlie teeth are rugose, as in 

 ordinary- specimens of S. rostratus ; they number l^Br^- Tbepremaxilhe 

 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 T>. delpMs. Tlie cervical region is longer than in Tursiops, but the 

 number of vertebrro 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 Stow perspicillatuSj ami I 

 have, therefore, entered that species separately in the synopsis. For 

 further remarks on the figures known to Cuvier, sec p. 27. 



