PRODELPllINUS EUPlIliOSYNE. G3 



PRODELPHINUS EUPHROSYNE (Gray). 



DeJphluHn cHphroi^ijnc, Gray, Zoal. Erubiis and Terror, 184G, p. 40, PI. xxil. 



IJelphUina slyx, Gray, Zool. Ercbii-s and Terror, 184(), p. 31), PL xxi. 



DelphUms icthyos, Gervais, Bull. Soc. d'Agric. Heraiilt, XL, 1853, p. 150, pi. l,ligs. 



1-4. 

 Delphlnui marginattis, Piiclieran, Reviio et Mag. Zool., 2""^ ser., viii, 18o8, p. 545, 



pi. 25. 

 Tursio dorddes, Gray, Cat. Seals and Whales, 18GG, p. 400. 

 CUjmene dorides, Gray, P. Z. S., 1868, p. 214. 

 CUjmenia enphrosynoides, Gray, Syuop. Whales and Dolpli., 1868, p. 6. (No de-* 



scription.) 



The type of the species above named, together with three skulls in 

 the Paris Museum (Nos. ft3022-ft'J034), and skull No. 179 from Jamaica, 

 iu the collection of the Royal Victoria Hospital, Netley, agree well to- 

 gether, both as regards absolute size, relative proportions, and the dis- 

 position of parts. The length of the beak varies from 56.2 per cent, to 

 G1.5 per cent, of the length of the entire skull. From the series which 

 groups itself around the type of P. doris they are distinguished by their 

 greater absolute size, relatively longer beak, broader interiuaxill;e, and 

 larger temporal fossoe, and by the possession of rather a larger number 

 of teeth. It must be confessed, however, that the recognition of these 

 niid similar characters is rendered difficult, as already stated, on account 

 of the blending of differences at the extremes of the series. The type 

 P. enphrosyne in the Norwich Museum (where I examined it) is well fig- 

 ured iu Gray's Synopsis^ pi. .23. It a])pears to be the skull of an adult 

 individual. 



The type of D. sty.v is lost and we have only Gray's figure {Syno2)sis, 

 pi. 21) to work from. The obliging secretary of the Eoyal United Serv- 

 ice Institution informed me by letter that this skull, with others, had 

 "long ago been disposed of." I agree with Professor Flower that i>. 

 sty.v is probably identical with P. enphrosyne. Indeed, Gray himself 

 was inclined to take the same view (see the CufaJoyue, p. 250). There 

 is little, however, except its rather large size by Mhich to distinguish it 

 from P. doris. 



D tethyos, Gervais, is founded on a single skull from Valreas, at the 

 mouth of the Orb. It is broken behind and appears as if diseased 

 along the frontal suture on the left side. The temporal fossie are 

 rounded. The pterygo ds are not wide and have a sharp keel. Ger- 

 vais compared this species only with Belpliinus dclpMs and Frodclphinus 

 dubius and froenatus. Whether he regarded the two latter species 

 (which he thought identical) as identical with or distinct from P. eu- 

 phrosyne we have no means of knowing. At all events we lack the au- 

 thority of his opinion for uniting P. tethyos with P. enphrosyne. On the 

 other hand there seems equally to be no reason for regarding these spe- 

 cies as distinct. If there are characters by which the skulls ma}' be 



