From the American Naturalist, Vol. V, March, 1871. 



THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE EARED SEALS. In the review of my 

 paper on the "Eared Seals"* by Dr. Theodore Gill, published in 

 the January number of the NATURALIST,! I was pleased to see that 

 this accomplished zoologist found in it a few things to commend, 

 nor was I surprised to find, knowing his opinions previously, that 

 on a few points we still somewhat differ. I regretted to observe, 

 however, that notwithstanding his accustomed accuracy, Dr. Gill 

 had, in the. present article, fallen into several by no means unim- 

 portant errors. He quite severely criticises my provisional differ- 

 entiation of the Otariadce into two subfamily groups, and in so 

 doing has not only questioned the value ascribed by me to the 

 characters alleged to be distinctive of the two groups, but also the 

 existence of such distinctions, at least to anything like the extent 

 claimed for them. 



The distinctions given as characteristic of the two groups were 

 differences in the character of the pelage, in size, form, the rela- 

 tive length of the ear and the swimming membranes or toe-flaps. 

 Without discussing here the taxonomic value of these distinctions, 

 I propose to examine briefly whether any of them have been shown 

 by Dr. Gill "to be degraded to absolute nullity." 



First, in regard to the pelage. The Oulophocince were charac- 

 terized as having " thick under fur," and the Trichophocince as 

 being "without under fur." As showing that this character is 

 not a trenchant one, Dr. Gill cites the observation of Dr. Peters 

 that the Arctocephalus antarcticus ( Otaria pusilla Peters) has very 

 thin under fur, and the remark of Dr. Gray that in Zalophus loba- 

 tus (Z. cinereus Gill) the young are " covered with soft fur which 

 falls off when the next coat of fur is developed," both of which- 

 objections I had already noticed. J To go over the ground again, 

 however, I may state that since Dr. Peters wrote, it has been as- 

 certained that both the Arctocephalus antarcticus and the A. 

 cinereus are richly provided with under fur, so well so, at least, 

 that these animals are pursued for their fur, which forms an arti- 

 cle of high commercial value. The remark respecting the tem- 



* Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. H, pp. 1-108, 1870. 



f Vol. IV, pp. 675-684. 



JBull. Mus. Comp. Zool., Vol. II, p. 41. 



Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., 4th ser., Vol. I, p. 219, March, 1868. Dr. Gray describes the 

 A. cinereus as having the "under fur abundant" (Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., 3d ser. 

 Vol. X VIII, p. 236, 1868), which remark is confirmed by a young specimen of this animal 

 In the Museum of Comparative Zoology. 



