NO. 8 INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF THE CETACEA WINGE 85 



Sci. Philadelphia, ser. 2, vol. 15, 1912. pp. 165-194, pis. 17-26, 

 with figures of skull, parts of the rest of the skeleton, teeth. 

 Lull: Fossil Dolphin from California; American Journal of Science, 

 ser. 4, vol. 37, 1914, pp. 209-220, pi. 8, also figures in the text. 

 "" Delphinavus." 



Delphinopsis (see note 8) is placed by Abel (Jahrb. k. k. geol. 

 Reichanst., vol. 55, pt. 2, 1905, pp. 384, 387, in the " Subfamily 

 Phocconincc " because it has " dermal armature." The remains are so 

 imperfect and so uncertain that it is impossible to say where it be- 

 longs ; not even the family can be determined from the specimen ; the 

 reference to Fhoccvmnxc is pure guesswork. 



Rhabdosteus was described in 1867 by Cope, who in 1890 (Amer. 

 Nat., vol. 24, p. 607) gave figures of the specimens on which the 

 genus was based, some remnants of a " beak," from a Tertiary North 

 American deposit. These remains Cope reconstructed in a somewhat 

 arbitrary manner. True (Remarks on the fossil Cetacean Rhab- 

 dosteus latiradix Cope ; Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, vol. 60, 

 1908, pp. 24-29, pi. 6, and text figures), who has had the specimens in 

 question under revision, together with some others more or less 

 similar, says that Cope has scarcely put them together right. The 

 specimens may recall Eurhinodclphis and its relatives ; but the remains 

 are altogether too incomplete and uncertain for anything to be decided. 



Lophocctiis, established by Cope in 1867, best known from East- 

 man's description (Types of fossil Cetaceans in the Museum of Com- 

 parative Zoology; Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 51, 1907, pp. 79-94, 

 pis. 1-4), Tertiary, North American, is most often placed in the 

 PJatanistidce. Brandt, however, counts it as a Delphinid (1873, /. c, 

 p. 288), most probably belonging to the " Abtheilung der Phocsenen," 

 perhaps to the genus Delphinapterus. In this determination he has 

 been followed by a few other authors. The most important basis of 

 the genus is a very imperfect skull, without teeth, with alveoli only, 

 so obscure that nothing positive can be said about it. According to 

 what can be seen of the form of the temporal fossa the genus appears 

 to agree best with the Delphinids. On the other hand it does not 

 seem possible to demonstrate anything that would especially recall 

 the Platanistids. 



Iniopsis was established by Lydekker (Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 

 1892, pp. 562-564, pis. 37-38) principally on an imperfect and obscure 

 braincase from a Tertiary deposit in the Caucasus. Lydekker places 

 it in the Platanistidcc and finds similarities with Pontistes, Stenodel- 

 pJiis ( =Pontoporia), Inia, etc. It appears, however, to be of another 



