112 BULLETIN 36, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



The skulls of Cephalorhynchus from New Zealand in tlie Paris Mu- 

 seum are larger than those from the Cape of Good Hope. The rostrum 

 iu the former occupies one-half the total length, but in the latter only 

 about 16 per cent. It is possible that the Kew Zealand skulls belong 

 to the species under discussion. 



The relations of tbe^e two species to a third recently discovered will 

 now be considered. This species is 



CEPHALORHYNCHUS IIECTOEI (Van Beuedeu). 



Elevlra hvctori, Van Beuedeu, Bull. Acad. R. Belgique, 3d ser., i, 1881, pp. 877-887, 

 PI. II. 



The specimen figured and described by Professor Yan Beneden was 

 captured in New Zealand waters. His admirable figures and descrip- 

 tion leave no room for doubt as to its generic j)osition, but its specific 

 relationshijis are not so readily made out. 



Externally the specimen differs from the figures of C. heavisidei m 

 having an ovate dorsal fin, and in that the throat and lower jaw are 

 white rather than black. On the other hand, it lacks the white fore- 

 head of C. albi/ron.s, but agrees with that species in the shape of the 

 dorsal fin. The skull, according to Professor Van Beneden, agrees 

 perfectly with that figured in the Ostcographie, PI. xxxvi, fig. 1, which 

 seems undoubtedly to belong to C. heavisidei. The vertebral formula, 

 however, does not agree exactly with that of G. heavisidei. In the lat- 

 ter species the normal formula is probably as follows: C. 7, D 13, L. 15, 

 Ca. 30=G5. Van Bencden's specimen gives the following formula : C. 

 7,D. U, L. 15, Ca. 27=03. 



Eegarding the differences, it may perhaps be said that the last-men- 

 tioned is due to individual variation. The color of the head and the 

 shape of the dorsal fin on the contrary can scarcely be so regarded. 

 But the color of the head is most like that of C. heavisidei, while the 

 shape of the dorsal fin resembles that of C. albifrons. To put it in either 

 of these species, therefore, we must disregard one or the other of the 

 distinctions. For the present, it appears to me, it must stand as an 

 independent species, and I have ranked it as such in the Synojjsis, 

 though with some misgivings, arising from geographical considerations. 



CEPHALORHYNCHUS EUTROPIA (Gray). 



Delphiiim eniroina, Gray, Proc. Zooi. Soc. London, 1819, p. 1. 

 Eulropla dickki, Gray, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1806, p. 215, 

 Tursio entrojna, Gray, Cat. Seals and Whales, 1866, p. 262. 

 CepliaJorhijnchus eiitropia, Dall, in Scaninion's Marine Mamm., 1874, p. 289. 



The only specimens of this species hitherto recorded are the two 

 skulls in the British Museum reported to have come from the coast of 

 Chili. Of these the type (No. 936(i) is somewhat the smaller, but 



