PRODliLPlIINaS EUPlIliO.SYNE. G3 



PRODELPHINU.S EUPHROSYNE (Gray). 



DeJpIihiiis ciqjiirosyne, Gray, Zoal. En'l)tis and Terror, 1846, p. 40, PI. xxil. 



Delphinits styx, Gray, Zool. Erebns and Terror, 184(), p. 39, PI. xxi. 



Dclphiniis ietlti/os, Gervais, Bull. Soc. d'Agrlc. Hdrault, XL, 1853, p. 150, pi. l,Jij.^s. 

 1-4. 



DcJplunm martjinatas, Puclierau, Reviio eb Mag. Zool., 2'>"^ ser. , viii, 18G8, p. 545, 

 pi. 25. 



TuiHiQ dorcldcs, Gray, Cat. Seals and Whales, 18G6, p. 400. 



Cbjmcne doridvs, Gray, P. Z. S., 1860, p. 214. 



Cljjmenia ciiphrosijnoides, Gray, Syuop. Whales and Doli)li., 1868, p. 6. (No de- 

 scription.) 



The type of the species above named, together with three skulls iu 

 the Paris Museiiiu (:Nros. rt3022-ftJ024), and skull No, 179 froai Jamaica, 

 ill the collection of the Royal Victoria Hospital, Netley, agree well to- 

 gether, both as regards absolute size, relative proportions, and the dis- 

 position of parts. The leugth of the beak varies from 5G.2 per ceut. to 

 G1.5 per cent, of the leugth of tlie entire skull. From the series which 

 groups itself around the type of P. doris they are distinguished by their 

 greater absolute size, relatively longer beak, broader intermaxilla^ and 

 larger temporal fossiie, ami by the possession of rather a larger number 

 of teeth. It must be confessed, however, that the recognition of these 

 and similar characters is rendered difficult, as already stated, on account 

 of the blending of differences at the extremes of the series. The type 

 P. euphrosyne in the Morwich Museum (where 1 examined it) is well fig- 

 ured in Gray's Syno2)sis, pi. 22. It appears to be the skull of an adult 

 individual. 



The type of D. sfy.v is lost and we have only Gray's figure {Synopsis, 

 pi. 21) to work from. The obliging secretary of the Eoyal United Serv- 

 ice Institution informed me b}- letter that this skull, with others, had 

 "long ago been disposed of." I agree with Professor Flower that 7>. 

 sty.v is probably identical with P. euphrosyne. Indeed, Gray himself 

 was inclined to take the same view (see the Cafcdogne, p. 250). There 

 is little, however, except its rather large size by which to distinguish it 

 from P. doris. 



D. letliyos, Gervais, is founded on a single skull from Valreas, at the 

 mouth of the Orb. It is broken behind and appears as if diseased 

 along the frontal suture on the left side. The temporal fosste are 

 rcninded. The pterygo ds are not wide and have a sharp keel. Ger- 

 vais compared this species only with Delpliinus delphis and ProdelpMnus 

 dubius and froenatus. Whether he regarded the two latter species 

 (which he thought identical) as identical with or distinct from P. eu- 

 phrosyne we have no means of knowing. At all events we lack the au- 

 thority of his opinion for uniting P. tefhyos with P. euphrosyne. On the 

 other hand there seems equally to be no reason for regarding these spe- 

 cies as distinct. If there are characters by which the skulls may be 



