476 FAMILY PHOCHXffi. 



Lobodon carcinophaga is certainly unquestionable, but the his- 

 tory of the tooth which served as the original of the drawing, in 

 reference to the locality of its assumed discovery, seems not alto- 

 gether satisfactory. Dr. Leidy discards its Miocene origin, but 

 seems to have no doubt respecting its discovery at the locality 

 named. Dr. Gray, in his synonymy of Lobodon carcinophaga, * 

 says, " See Stenorhynchus vetus, Leidy, .... tooth, said to be 

 found in the greensand of New Jersey", seemingly implying not 

 only its close resemblance to Lobodon carcinophaga, but doubt 

 as to the correctness of the assumed locality. In view of the 

 possible extralimital origin of the tooth, I hesitate to formally 

 include the species in the list of North American Pinnipeds.t 

 EUROPE. While fossil remains of Seals have been found so 

 rarely in North America, not a single extinct species having 

 been certainly determined, the Tertiary deposits of Europe, par- 

 ticularly those of Belgium, have yielded abundant remains of 



* Cat. Seals and Whales, 1866, p. 10. 



tMr. Andrew Murray, in commenting (Geog. Distr. Mam., p. 124, 1866) 

 upon this species (Leidy's Stenorhynchus vetus) observes, as follows: "Sir 

 Charles Lyell tells us [Elements of Geology, sixth ed., London, 1865, p. 336] 

 that that gentleman [Mr. Samuel R. Wetherill] related to him and Mr. Con- 

 rad, in 1853, the circumstances under which he met with it, associated with 

 Ammonites placenta, Ammonites Delawarensis, Trigonia thoracica, &c., and he 

 adds that although the tooth had been mislaid, it was not so until it had ex- 

 cited much interest, and been carefully examined by good zoologists 



There seems to be no reason to doubt that the tooth was found where Mr. 

 Wetherill said it was, nor is there any question here of misplaced labels, but 

 there is certainly room for doubting its determination, because we see where 

 and how an error might easily enough have arisen. In the first place, it is 

 referred to a living genus of mammals, and we know of no genus which has 

 subsisted through so many cycles. The presumption is therefore against 

 it on that score. In the next place, there is a certain resemblance between 

 the teeth of Sharks and some Seals, and it is precisely in the genus Steno- 

 rhynchus that the resemblance is most marked It is possible, therefore, 



that the supposed Seal's tooth may have been a very much rubbed and worn 

 Shark's tooth ; and although Lyell says it was carefully examined by good 

 zoologists, the only one of known competence whom he mentions as having 

 had to do with it is Dr. Leidy, who did not see it, but described it from a 

 drawing. The objections to the supposed mesozoic Seal's tooth, therefore, 

 appear to be too well founded to require us to devote much time to a specu- 

 lation founded upon its authenticity." Mr. Murray gives comparative views 

 of Shark and Seal teeth, to show how close is the resemblance of the teeth 

 of Stenorhynchus to those of certain Sharks, but if Mr. Murray had taken 

 the trouble to consult the original figure of the tooth of S. vetus he would 

 have seen, first, that it was not a "much worn and rubbed tooth", and, 

 secondly, that it was not a tfiree-pointed tooth like those he figures, but a 

 ^re-pointed tooth, representing Lobodon and not Stenorhynchus. 



