-98 STUDIES OF TASMANIAN CETACEA, 



" 8h inches long; the front lower teeth are worn awav and 

 " tiaincated, like the teeth of the common DeJpli inus 

 " tursio, which was described as D. hrunatus by Montague 

 " There are twenty-seven teeth on each side in the upper, 

 " and twenty-five teeth on each side in the lower jaw. No. 

 "2 is seventeen inches long; the beak 9i, and the upper 

 " tooth-bone 8 inches long. The teeth, twenty-four above 

 " (perhaps one on each side is deficient, as the end of the 

 '■ jaiW is verv tender), twenty-three or twenty-four below. 

 " The front teeth are slightly truncated, but this skull 

 " diflFers from No. 1, being rather more convex and rather 

 '■ narrower, especially in the hinder part, from the middle 

 " of its length." 



Gray continues: — "I have compared these skulls with 

 '■ those of the different species of Bottlenoses {Tursio) in the 

 " British Museum ; a.nd they are perfectly distinct from any 

 " of them. The species may be called Jhlphimis catalania. 

 " It is smaller in size, and has a much smaller brain cavity 

 " than D. cymodice (Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, t. 19) 

 " and B. metis (Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, t. 18), and 

 " the beak is not so tapering as in these species, and the 

 '■ teeth are rather more numerous. It is equally distinct 

 " from Deljjhinus eurysovie (Gray, Zool. Erebus and Terror, 

 "' t. 17), believed to h& from the North Sea. It is not easy 

 " to point out the distinction of these species in words; but 

 " there cannot be a doubt about them when they are com- 

 " pared together." 



In 1883 Professor Flower 'S' devoted considerable at- 

 tention to the genus under review, and made several 

 observations regarding the sex characters of T. tursio. We 

 desire to quote certain of Professor Flowers remarks, and 

 also to place in italics the 2>oi-tions which agree with our 

 own observations. In this manner will be seen the re- 

 markable similarity which exists between the Tasmanian 

 form and the species examined by Flower, who stated 

 inter alia: — "J-?*, the males the rostrum is larger and compara- 

 "'tively narrower. The int.ermaxiJlaries are mor prominent 

 '' and conr'ex, especialli/ i7i their posterior half ; in this region 

 " the external border of the maxiUaries is almost parallel to the 

 ^' correspondiiig portion of the inter maxillaries : the crests «>f 

 " the cranium are nii>re elevated and less sloping laterally. 

 " The heads of the females are remarkable for the breadth of the 

 '^rostrum at its base and its middle point; the rostrmu conse- 

 " quently has a more triangular form ; the intermaxiHaries ar& 

 " more flattened ; the exterior border of the posterior portion of 

 " the maxillaries is not parallel to the external harder oj the 



(6) Flower; P.Z.S.. 1883. 



