2 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. T.i 



scriptions are often so involved and bristling with details, unimpor- 

 tant save when a study is being made of individual variation, that 

 one is often at a loss to fathom his exact meaning. He made some 

 mistakes in interpreting what he saw, and doubtless others which it 

 is difficult to discover, but one gathers the impression from working 

 with his paper that he was a capable, trustworthy man, doing work 

 of a high order of merit. 



Murie's reports upon the myology of Emneto'pias (his Otaria) 

 (1872) and Odebenus (his Tricheclms) (1870) are descriptive rather 

 than comparative. They are accompanied by beautiful plates some 

 of which are far more satisfactory than any I could execute, but 

 others are vague and misleading. He misnames and misinterprets a 

 number of muscles, although to but a slightly greater extent than did 

 Miller. It is, of course, beyond question that Murie was an able and 

 brilliant human anatomist, but it is perhaps not out of place for me to 

 say that after working with his sea lion and Glohiocephala reports 

 line by line I have received a definite impression that implicit reliance 

 can not always be placed upon the myological details which he 

 presents. 



One might, therefore, justifiably enquire regarding the value of an 

 additional report upon the anatomy of the Pinnipedia. The reason 

 is that the others are largely descriptive or compare individual 

 muscles, but no one has heretofore analyzed the differences occuring 

 in the otariids and phocids, the significance of these from a functional 

 aspect, the reasons for the osteological peculiarities, and the organi- 

 zation of the pinniped as a dynamic machine built for aquatic loco- 

 motion. My myological report is but a necessary part of the whole. 

 The conclusions to which the anatomical evidence points has not been 

 discussed in entirety, however. Most of the myological discussion is 

 presented with the muscles, some of the osteological with the bones, 

 and still more under the general discussion. Yet additional facts 

 and theories are being reserved which are considered to belong more 

 properly with a comparison of the Pinnipedia with other aquatic 

 mammals. I have placed those interpretations upon the anatomical 

 peculiarities of the Pinnipedia which to me seem most logical, but it 

 can not be claimed that all of these are correct, or that some of them 

 will not need modification when additional facts are brought to light. 



In the drawings of muscles no especial system of reduction is used^ 

 the proportions being merely such as will fit conveniently upon a page. 

 In the bone drawings, however, comparative details are presented to 

 represent relative difference in size, and because the trunk length of 

 the Phoca skeleton used in comparisons was seven-tenths that of the 

 Zalophus, the reduction of the latte;:'s bones is but seven-tenths of 

 those of the former. In this way one may more readily compare 

 osteological details. 



