608 PHOCA FCETIDA RINGED SEAL, 



same conclusion, affirming most emphatically that the Caspian 

 Seal yvas in no way closely related to Phoca vitulina, but found 

 its nearest affine in Phoca fcetida.* The distinctive characters 

 claimed by these authors for the Caspian Seal, as compared 

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

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

 and more numerous mystacial bristles, and a somewhat differ- 

 ent pattern of coloration. The ilitferences claimed by Nilsson 

 and Wagner were confirmed by Eaddet 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 aj)pears, however, that the 



grosser, anders gefiirbt, liat viel sturkeres Barthaar, abstehendere iiud klei- 

 nere Ziiliue, und den Zwisclieubalkeu iiacb hinten zu abgeruadet, wodurclt 

 eine rundliclae UebegangsllLiclie zwiscben Stirn und Scbliifeugrube entsteht, 

 wo sich bei Ph. annellata stets eine scharfe Kante fiudet." Wiegmann's 

 Arch, fiir Nattirg., 1841, p. 314. 



* On this point be says, " Auch aus meiuer Vergleichung geht es liervor, 

 dass Phoca casjnca keiueswegs mit der Ph. vitulina, sondern nur mit der 

 Ph. annellata, in niichste Beziebung treteu kann. Als Uutersohiede finde 

 ich, dass die Eiugelzeicbnuug bei Ph. casjnca minder ausgebildet ; ist dafur 

 sind die Bartschnurren weit zablreicher, liinger und steifer, die Kralleu 

 scbwacber und nicht kohlscbwarz wie bei Ph. annellata, sondern bellbrauu 

 mitweisslicben- Spitzen. . . ." Schreber^s Saugth., Tbeil vii, p. 35. 



tEeisen im Siiden vom Ost-Sibiriens, vol. i, ]}\}. 296-304. 



tGeograijb. 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 Casjiiau [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 geograj)hical position, no 

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

 the Phoca vitulina, and the other the Phoca fcetida. 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 hoth to Phoca vitulina 

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

 two species they resemble, and Eadde'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 



