718 MONACHUS? TROPICALIS WEST INDIAN SEAL. 



brokeu. Muzzle rather dilated . . . This skull is exceed- 

 ingly like that of the young C. cristataP In 18GG, under "Addi- 

 tions and Corrections" in his " Catalogue of Seals and Whales " 

 (p. 3G7), lie cites for the first time " Hill's Jamaica Almanack, 

 1843", and adds as a synonym "The Pedro Seal (Phoca Wilki- 

 anus), Gosse, Nat Sojourn in Jamaiea, 307, 308", and quotes 

 the descrip^ons of specimens there given. 



Gill on the West Indian Seals, 1866. Dr. Gill in 1866 

 (but before he had seen Gray's "Catalogue of Seals and 

 Whales" of that date) thus referred to the West Indian Seals: 

 " The relations of the Jamaican Seal, rejoicing In the two names, 



Phoca tropicalis, Gray, and ?! WilManus, Gosse (1851), are 



very uncertain. Mr, Gosse obtained a single skin. The exact 

 origin of the Cystophora antiUarum was not mentioned in the 

 original description, and its West Indian habitat requires con- 

 firmation."* Dr. Gray,t a little later, in referring to Dr. Gill's 

 above-quoted remarks, reaffirmed that the specimens of both 

 his species were obtained in Jamaica by Mr. Gosse. 



Analysis and Discussion of the foeegoing. From the 

 foregoing, the only information at present accessible on the 

 subject, what conclusions may be drawn respecting the num- 

 ber of species and affinities of the West Indian Seals'? Are 

 there two species or one, and what is their relationship ? In 

 the first j)lace, it may be noted that Gray's Phoca tropicalis and 

 Gosse's Pedro Seal ( wilManus), the latter named specific- 

 ally, but referred to no particular genus, are one and the same 

 thing, the former being based on Mr. Gosse's specimen. That 

 such a species exists is beyond question, while, as will be no- 

 ticed fully later, its generic affinities seem to be with MonachuSy 

 to which genus Dr. Gray finally referred it. Secondly, it is to 

 be noted that the specimens made known by Hill and Gosse, 

 and all their observations respecting the Jamaican Seals, re- 

 late to this type, and in no way suggest the genus Cystophora. 

 In the third i^lace, no one can doubt but that the specimens 

 on which Gray based his Cystophora antiUarum were correctly 

 referred to Cystophora. Every point of the description ren- 

 ders this evident, while Dr. Gray himself says, in his last ref- 

 erence to the species, twenty-five years after it was first de- 

 scribed, "This skull is exceedingly Like that of the young G. 



* Proc. Essex Institute, vol. v, No. 1, Aiiril, 1866, p. 4, footnote, 

 t Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., xvii, 1866, p. 445. 



