Dr. Burmeister on Arctocephalus Hookeri. 91 



GUI' museum, the skull of which is not more than five inches 

 wide. 



From all these characteristics there can be no doubt of the 

 distinctness of Arctocephalus Hooheri as a different species, 

 which must not be confused with the young state of Otaria 

 juhata. 



I had already confirmed this opinion by repeated obser- 

 vations on different individuals of Otaria juhata in our mu- 

 seum, when I received, about a month ago, by favour of its 

 author, the work of J. A. Allen on Seals with ears, recently 

 published in the ' Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative 

 Zoology at Harvard College,' vol. ii. no. 1 (Cambridge, U.S.A.), 

 in which the author, alluding to former publications, confesses 

 himself disposed to unite anew Arctocephalus Hookeri with 

 Otaria juhata^ presuming that the noted differences were 

 irregular (■' to be in an unusual state," p. 40). I cannot share 

 this opinion : characters which manifest themselves in three 

 different specimens that Gray enumerates in his ' Catalogue 

 of Seals,' p. 5.4, are, according to my view, regular, and not 

 exceptional, especially if different authors acknowledge them 

 {cf. Peters, Monatsb. 1866, p. 668) ; and for this reason I 

 accept them as diagnostics. Also I ought to correct the note 

 (p. 13) in which the author affirms that the marine seals of 

 our museum were collected by Dr. Maack. The truth is that 

 this gentleman accompanied, by my invitation and at the ex- 

 pense of the Public Museum, the hunter for the museum, 

 Santiago Pozzi, in his excursion to Patagonia, without, how- 

 ever, giving him any other assistance than that of companion- 

 ship. Moreover the Avork of killing the animals and pre- 

 paring the skins was done by Pozzi, and not by Dr. Maack. 



Very well founded, on the other hand, is the observation of 

 Dr. Murie that Otaria PhiUppiij Peters, is not identical 

 with Arctocephalus Hookeri, Gray (p. 15). This species is 

 very near to Otaria falklandica (described by me, Ann. & Mag. 

 Nat. Hist. ser. 4, vol. i. p. 99) ; but I do not believe the two 

 animals to be identical, which I endeavour to prove in the 

 Zeitschr. fur d. ges. Naturw. vol. xxxi. p. 300. Otaria 

 Philippii is identical with Phoca porcina of Molina (Comp. 

 d. 1. Hist. Nat, de Chile, i. p. 314), Otaria porcina, Gay 

 (Hist. Nat. de Chile, Zoolog. i. p. 75) ; and if it were also 

 identical with Arctocephalus falklandiciis of our Patagonian 

 coasts, this species ought to differ in its individuals in the 

 same manner as Otaria juhata s. leonina. 



