5(S r.ULLETlN 30, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



DELPHINUS LONGIROSTRIS Ciivier (ex DassinnieiJ. 



Del2)]uiiiis loiigirosfrii Diissumier, Ciivier, Rcgue Animal, "2(1 cd., 18:i3, p. 288; 

 Gervais, Ostcog. des CtStact'vs, 1830, p. G04, PI. xxxix, fi<fs. 10, 11. 



The name Dclphinus longirostris was employed by Gray in the 

 Spicilegia Zoologica a year prior to the publication of tUe second edi- 

 tion of the Kegue Animal, but it appears that Gray's si)eeimen really 

 belonged to another genus, viz, rrodclphinus,* and there is therefore 

 no impropriety in retaining for the long-beaked, many-tootbed Delpliin- 

 us the name which Cuvier took from Dussumier's manuscripts. Tliere 

 is some question, however, as to the specimen which Cuvier had in mind, 

 and the determination of this point is made the more necessary by 

 Professor Flower's recent interesting discovery that the specimen which 

 Gray made the type of hisD. capensis is a true DeJphinus, with a longer 

 beak and more numerous teeth than D. delphis {List, p. 26). 



Cuvier's diagnosis of the species, if diagnosis it may be termed, is 

 very brief. He simply states that it ^'surpasses even the common dol- 

 phin in the number of its teeth, having from fifty-five to sixty through- 

 out. From the coast of Malabar."t There is in the Paris Museum a 

 skull, No. rtSOG.j, labeled ^^Eudelphimis longirostris, Malabar. Dussu- 

 mier, 1827." This is undoubtedly the skull figured by Van Beneden 

 and Gervais (iJsteog.., PI. xxxix, figs. 10,11), but those authors give 

 the number of teeth as |f5f|,t although their figure shows G5-03 teeth 

 in the upper jaw. In the same skull I counted 65-65 teeth in the upper 

 jaw. Pucheran, on the other hand, gives the formula |^, correspond- 

 ing to that given by Van Beneden and Gervais in the text, except that 

 the number on the left and right sides of the mandible, respectively, is 

 reversed. 



No mention is made of this species in the first edition of the Regue 

 Animal ; it appears for the first time in the second edition, of which 

 the first volume was issued in 1829, two years later than the date on 

 the label of Dussumier's specimen. From the evidence at command I 

 believe that the skull which I examined is identical with that which 

 Cuvier had in mind. 



Whether this species is identical with Gray's I), capensis (Spic. Zool., 

 1828, p. 2) remains to be determined. If such proves to be the case, 

 Gray's name will have to be adopted for the species. Professor Flower 



* Pucheran (Rev. and Mag.de Zoologie, 1856, 452) is at a loss to understand liov\- 

 Gray could apply the terras "osse palatino carinato" (Spicilegia, p. 2) to a skull in 

 which the "palate" is flat, but had he studied the matter more closely I think he 

 would have concluded, as I have, that Gray's term "palate-bone" means iu reality 

 the pterygoid. 



t McMurtrie, Cuvier's Animal Kingdom, i, 1831, p. 202. The original second edition 

 of the Regue Animal is not at conuuand. 



|Ost^'og.,p. fiO-l. 



