608 PHOCA FCETIDA RINGED SEAL. 



same conclusion, affirming most emphatically that the Caspian 

 Seal was in no way closely related to Phoca mtulina, but found 

 its nearest affine in Phoca fcetida* The distinctive characters 

 claimed by these authors for the Caspian Seal, as compared 

 with Phoca fcetida, are larger size, smaller and more widely sep- 

 arated teeth, greater convexity of the cranium, longer, stiffer r 

 and more numerous mystacial bristles, and a somewhat differ- 

 ent pattern of coloration. The differences claimed by Nilsson 

 and Wagner were confirmed by Kaddet in 1862, who gave a 

 detailed comparison of the cranial characters of Phoca caspica 

 with those of Phoca fcetida. Yet, in face of all this testimony, 

 we find Mr. Andrew Murray, as late as 1866,{ affirming that the 

 Caspian Seal "is PHOCA VITULINA," and that the Baikal Seal 

 is nothing but Phoca fcetida.^ It appears, however, that the 



grosser, anclers gefarbt, hat viel starkeres Barthaar, abstehendere und klei- 

 nere Zahne, und den Zwischenbalken nacb bin ten zu abgerundet, wodurch 

 eine rundliche Uebegangsfiache zwischen Stirn undSchlafeDgrubeentsteht, 

 wo sich bei Ph. annellata stets eine scbarfe Kante findet." Wiegmann's 

 Arch, fiir Naturg., 1841, p. 314. 



* On this point he says, " Auch aus meiuer Vergleichung geht es hervor, 

 dass Phoca caspica keineswegs mit der Ph. vitulina, sondern nur mit der 

 Ph. annellata, in nachste Beziehung treten kann. Als Unterschiede finde 

 ich, dass die Ringelzeichnuug bei Ph. caspica minder ausgebildet ; ist dafiir 

 sind die Bartschnurren weit zahlreicher, liinger und steifer, die Krallen 

 schwacher und nicht kohlschwarz wie bei Ph. annellata, sondern hellbraun 

 init weisslichen Spitzen. . . ." Schreber's Saugth., Theil vii, p. 35. 



tReisen im Stiden voni Ost-Sibiriens, vol. i, pp. 296-304. 



tGeograph. Distr. Mam., p. 126. 



It is perhaps not strange that Mr. Murray should have referred the Seal 

 of Lake Baikal to Phoca foetida, especially inasmuch as Radde had affirmed 

 the two to be identical after having compared specimens, but his strange 

 perversion of the record in the case of the Caspian Seal deserves a passing 

 notice. He says: "The species in the Caspian [Sea] (Phoca caspica) is de- 

 scribed as very nearly allied to our common Phoca vitulina, and that in Lake 

 Baikal as equally close to Phoca fcetida (Ph. annellata, Nilss.), a species 

 found in the North Atlantic; and but for their geographical position, no 

 one would think of separating them from these species. In fact, the one is 

 the PHOCA VITULINA, and the other the PHOCA FCETTDA. Nilsson and Gray 

 no doubt both consider them distinct, but I do not apprehend that either of 

 them does so from actual observation [Nilsson characterized Phoca caspica 

 from specimens!], and it is scarcely possible to doubt that the peculiarity 

 of the locality must have had some influence on their minds. On the other 

 hand, Pallas, Gmelin, Fischer, [these authors referred both to Phoca vitulina 

 as varieties of that species !] and Radde, regard them as belonging to the 

 two species they resemble, and Radde's personal experiences must outweigh 

 any foregone conclusion arrived at by others who have not had the advan- 

 tage of seeing the animals themselves." Geogr. Distr. Mam., p. 126. That 



