DELPllINUS DELPHIS. 



4'J 



Delphimis major Gray. 



Among- the skulls rostMubling ]). ilcJyhis \\\ tlie varioii.s Euroi)eau 

 imiseums arc some which have been iiuule the types of distinct species. 

 Among these species are D. longn-ostris, major, fnJroJmciatns, Moorei, 

 WalLcri, janira, and Forstcri. It now becomes oui- duty to consider 

 these specimens, iu order to determine whether they arc to be regarded 

 as identical with D. cMpUis or as distinct. 



I will first take up Delplilnus major Gray (Cat. Seals and Whales, 

 J8GG, p. 39G). 



Gray's first character is : "Skull larger than that of I). delpMsP The 

 total length, according to my measurements, is 5-5.7'"'. This exceeds 

 by G""' Fischer's largest specimen of D. (leJphis {!). d. fiisus A.). Another 

 character lies in the length of the beak, which exceeds three times the 

 width of the beak at the base. This relation holds true of five of J\I. Fisch- 

 er's eleven females of D. delphh and of one of the two males. The depth 

 and width of the palatal grooves is a third character in Gray's diagno- 

 sis. Regarding this character I can onl}' say that my observation 

 teaches me that the grooves var^^ more or less in depth and width in 

 diflfereut specimens of />. ddpMs, and that I cannot, therefore, consider 

 this variation as of special imi)ortance. 



1 compared the type skull (Xo. 1472fl, Brit. Mus.) in the British Mu- 

 seum with skulls of D. delphls, and have since compared the photograph 

 of the same, which I was permitted to have made, w ith skulls in the 

 National Museum. As a result, I cannot find character which seem to 

 me of importance as distinguishing this skull from those of J>. dclphis. 

 The mandible is rather narrower than is common in J>. delphis, and the 

 alveolar border is less concave, but these are details which are not of 

 prime importance. 



As regards proportions, the skull of D. major has a relatively longer 

 and narrower beak and uarrower brain-case than the majority of _D. 

 dcJphis which I have examined. It is, however, approached very closely 

 by the much smaller skull, No. a'5088, Mus. d'Hist. nat., from the coast 

 of Algeria (see Table, p. 48, No. 9). The proportions in the two 

 skulls are as follows: 



18378— Bull. 36 4 



