GENUS GRAMPUS. 



125 



Inches. 



Height of body at same point 3. .5 



Length of eye 75 



Width of spoiithole 1.87 



Extension of white area posterior to the anus (j. 5 



Length of white area along the belly 18. 



Width of head at corner of the mouth 5. 5 



Depth of body 24 inches anterior to the flakes (at which point the keels are 



widest) 10.0 



Lepth 8 inches anterior to flukes 7..') 



Navel to anterior end of genital slit 7. 5 



Measurements of two skulls of Pliocama dallii. 



Measurements. 



Totallensth 



Length of beak 



Breailih of beak at base of notches 



Breadth of beak at its middle 



Breadth of intermaxillaries at same point 



Greatest breadth between outer margins of intermaxillaries 



proximally 



Leuj;th of tooth-line 



Last too'h to liase of maxillary notch 



Tip of beak to anterior margin superiornaaal openiug 



Tip r)f beak to end of crest of pterygoid 



Breadth between orbital processes of frontal 



Breadth between hinder margins of temporal fossas 



Length of temporal fossa 



Depth of temporal fossa 



Total length of mandible 



Length of sym])hysis of mandible 



Length of tooth row of mandible 



Depth between angle and coronoid process 



Number of teeth 



14. GEAMPUS Gray. 

 Graynpus, Gray, Spic. Zool., 1828, p. 2; Zool. Erebus & Terror, 1846, p. 30. 

 GRAMPUS GRISEUS (Cuvier). 



Delplwrns grisens, Cuvier, Ann. Mus., xix, 1812, p. 14, pi. 1, fig. 1. 



Delphiuus Rissoanus, Desuiarest, Manimalogie, 1822, p. 519. 



Grampus Cuvieri, Gray, Ann. Nat. Hist., 17, 1846, p. 85. 



Grampus Souverhianus, Fischer, Act. Linu.Soc. Bordeaux, xxxv, 1881, p. 210. 



Grampus sakamata, Gray, Zool. Erebus & Terror, 1846, p. 31. 



Grampus Stearnsii, Dall, Proc. California Acad. Sci., v, 1813, p. 13. 



Glohiocephalus Eissii, Anon., Chinese Repos., vi, 1838, \). 411-414. 



Globiocephalus Chinensis.Grnj, Cat. Seals and Whales, 1866, p. 323. 



M. Fischer* and Professor Flower t bavinj? discussed at length the 

 question of the identity of G. grisens and G. Rissoanus, and havinu' 

 reached the conclnsion that no distinction is to be made between the two 

 nominal species, it is unnecessary for me to repeat the arguments, since 



* Fischer, Act. Linn. Soc, Bordeaux, xxxv, 1881, p. 195, et seq. 

 t Flower, Trans. Zool. Soc, London, viii, 1872, pp. 1-21, pis. 1,2. 



