DELPIIINU.S DELPIIIS. 



49 



Delphinus major Gray. 



Araoiij,^ the skulls resembling T). delphis in the various European 

 museums are some which have been made the types of distinct species. 

 Among these species are D. longirostris, major, fulvofasciatus, Moorei, 

 Walkeri, janlra, and Forstcri. It now becomes our duty to consider 

 these specimens, in order to determine whether they are to be regarded 

 as identical with D. dclpMs or as distinct, 



I will first take up Delphinus major Gray (Cat. Seals and Whales, 

 18GG, p. 390). 



Gray's first character is : " Skull larger than that of 1). delphis:^ The 

 total length, according to my measurements, is 52.7'^"'. This exceeds 

 by G«"' Fischer's largest specimen of D. delphis {1>. d.fusns A.). Another 

 character lies in the length of the beak, which exceeds three times the 

 width of the beak at the base. This relation holds true of five of JM. Fisch- 

 er's eleven females of I), delphis and of one of the two males. The depth 

 and width of the palatal grooves is a third character in Gray's diagno- 

 sis. Kegardiug this character I can only say that my observation 

 teaches me that the grooves vary more or less in depth and width in 

 different specimens of />. delphis, and that I cannot, therefore, consider 

 this variation as of special importance. 



I compared the type skull (Xo. 1472«, Brit. Mus.) in the British Mu- 

 seum with sknlls of I>. delphis, and have since compared the i)hotograph 

 of the same, which I was permitted to have made, with skulls in the 

 National Museum. As a result, I cannot find character which seem to 

 me of importance as distinguishing this skull from those of J>. delphis. 

 The mandible is rather narrower than is common in 7>. delphis, and the 

 alveolar border is less concave, but these are details which are not of 

 prime importance. 



As regards proportions, the skull of J), major has a relatively longer 

 and narrower beak and narrower brain-case than the majority of D. 

 delphis wiiicli I have examined. It is, however, approached very closely 

 by the much smaller skull. No. a'>088, Mus. d'Hist. nat., from the coast 

 of Algeria (see Table, p. 48, No. 9). The proportions in the two 

 skulls are as follows: 



18378— Bull. 36 4 



