686 GENUS HALICHCERUS. 



gebildert ist." . . . Eeferring now to Hoiittiiyn,* we find this 

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

 Hooggeleerde Heer Albinus, in 't Jaar 174S, den 24 February, 

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

 zyn heeft laaten openen" (I. c, p. IG). 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 ZeeHond, hier voor in Fig. 6 

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

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

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

 account it may be well to state that Miiller's and Honttuj'n'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.! 



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

 lucid account of the external and some other characters of the 

 specunen Houttuyn saw him dissect, but also the original of 

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

 from the otliers 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 



* Natuarlyke Historic of uitvoerige Bescliryving der Dieren, Planten, en 

 Mineraaleu, Volgens het Samenstel vau den Heer Linna;us. Met naauwkeu- 

 rige Ai'beeldingen. Eerste Deels, Tweede Stuk. Vervolg der Zoogende Die- 

 ren. Te Amsterdam. By F. Honttuyn, 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, x>. 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 flipper is 

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

 fectly intelligible, Scoj^oli 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 

 ("iucisores" 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 knowi^, better than to delib- 

 erately ascribe ten canines to any mammal. 



