686 GENUS HALICHCERUS. 



gebildert 1st." . . . Beferring now to Houttuyn,* we find this 

 statement : "Fig. 6, [pi. xi] is die van een Zee-Hond, welken de 

 Hooggeleerde Heer ALBINUS, in 't Jaar 1748, den 24 February, 

 te Leiden, op de Yertoonplaats der Ontleedkunde, in myn by- 

 zyn lieeft laaten openen" (1. c., p. 16). Later (1. c., pp. 28,29) 

 he gives a description of the specimen here referred ,to as dis- 

 sected in his presence by Professor Albinus, where he says, 

 "De Heer ALBINUS heeft in den Zee-Hond, hier voor in Fig. 6 

 ["pi. xi, fig. 6," in the margin] afgebeeld, onder anderen, het 

 volgende opgemeckt," citing at*this point, in a footnote, "An- 

 not. Acad. Libr. Ill, Cap. XV." Before turning to Albinus's 

 account it may be well to state that Miiller's and Houttuyn's 

 plates here cited are identical, even to the notation, and that 

 Miiller's description is merely a slightly abridged translation of 

 Houttuyn's account.t 



On referring to Albinus, we find not only a very full and 

 lucid account of the external and some other characters of the 

 specimen Houttuyn saw him dissect, but also the original of 

 both Houttuyn's and Miiller's figures ! Albinus's figure differs 

 from the others only in being much more finely executed. But 

 besides the figure copied by Houttuyn, Albinus gives several 

 detail figures, which demonstrate that the specimen could not 

 have been Halichcerus grypus. Albinus's description shows him 

 to have been not only one of the most accomplished anatomists 



*Natuurlyke Historic of uitvoerige Beschryving der Dieren, Planten, en 

 Mineraalen, Volgens het Samenstel van den Heer Linna3iis. Met naauwkeu- 

 rige Afbeeldingen. Eerste Deels, Tweede Stuk. Vervolg der Zoogende Die- 

 ren. Te Amsterdam. By F. Houttuyn, M D CC LXI. 



t Since writing the above I have met with a reference to Scopoli's Pusa 

 by Hermann, in his elaborate account of the Monk Seal of the Mediter- 

 ranean, in which he criticises severely Scopoli's absurd diagnosis, and sug- 

 gests explanations of some of Scopoli's erroneous characters. As Hermann 

 (Beschiiftigungen der Berlinischen Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde, 

 4 Band, 1779, p. 464, footnote) intimates, his " Pedes .... postici 

 connati in pinnam sexlobam" is based on a very stupid misunderstanding 

 of Miiller's figure, in which only the upper edge of the left hind nipper is 

 seen above the right one. Although the shading renders the figure per- 

 fectly intelligible, Scopoli evidently counted this upper edge of the left 

 hind flipper as the sixth lobe of a single appendage, the whole forming his 

 six-lobed " pinna ". If we may suppose the transposition of two words 

 ("incisores" and " canini") by typographical error in Scopoli's dental for- 

 mula, the rendering would be correct, namely, Dentes canini quatuor, inci- 

 sores supra sex, infra quatuor. But this we fear is lenient judgment, al- 

 though it would seem that Scopoli must have known better than to delib- 

 erately ascribe ten canines to any mammal. 



