1875. ] MR. J. W. CLARK ON EARED SEALS. 679 
no. 1532, m. =; and no. 1535, m. =. In these specimens all 
the molars have a well-marked internal ‘“‘cingulum,”’ and the four 
first, in both jaws, a tolerably large anterior cusp; there is no pos- 
terior cusp. The belief in its existence is due to the size of the 
*‘cingulum,” whose posterior edge may easily be mistaken for a cusp. 
The last two above and the last below are bicuspid. A skull in the 
Leyden Museum, marked “ O¢aria australis, Coll. Brookes. Nouv. 
Hollande. Type del Aretocephalus lobatus, Gray, Spic. Zool. tab. 4. 
fig. 2. Otaria australis? ‘ Astrolabe,’ tab. 14,” has only five molars 
in the upper jaw, as I learn from the notes on that collection made 
by my friend Professor Flower, and which he has most kindly allowed 
me to use. The hinder opening of the palate in adult but not old 
specimens is V-shaped. 
Mr. Gould states that old animals are destitute of fur, and that 
the males and females differ in colour; Mr. Scott says, “the com- 
mercial value of the animal consists in the hide and oil only ”’* ; and " 
Quoy and Gaimard note that “the distinguishing mark of this species 
is, that on no part of the body is there any fur at the base of the 
hair” +. I reconcile the discrepancies in the figures of Gould and 
Quoy and Gaimard by suggesting that the white spot may be a distin- 
guishing mark of males, and therefore would not be mentioned by 
Quoy and Gaimard, who studied a female only. This idea is sup- 
ported by Mr. Scott’s remarks that females are lighter than males, 
which are of a dark brown; while Quoy and Gaimard themselves 
admit (though their figure does not show it) that the yellowish grey 
of the back (“un gris qui a des reflets jaunatres’’) becomes lighter 
on the neck and passes into a dirty white on the head, cheeks, and 
muzzle. Moreover both Arctocephalus lobatus and Otaria aus- 
tralis are noted as having nails on all five toes—a character which is 
clearly not peculiar to the O¢ariide of Australia, and which it is not 
likely would be repeated in two species from the same or neigh- 
bouring localities. 
The synonymy will therefore, if my views be accepted, run as 
follows :— 
1. OraRIA FORSTERI. 
1828. Otaria forsteri, Lesson, Dict. Class. d’ Histoire Naturelle, 
xilil. 421. . 
1829. Phoca forsteri, Fischer, Synopsis Mammalium, 1829, p. 232. 
1844. Phoca ursina, J. R. Forster, Descript. Animal. p. 64 f. 
1866. Arctocephalus cinereus, Gray, Ann. & Mag. xviii. 236. 
1872. Gypsophoca tropicalis, Gray, P. Z.S. 1872, p. 659. 
Hab. Dusky Bay, N. Z. (Forster) ; Cape-Barren Island, Bass’s 
* Mammalia, Recent and Extinct (8vo, Sydney, 1873), p. 21. 
t ‘Ce qui distingue cette espéce c'est quil n’y a nulle part de feutre a la 
bas des poils” (Z. c. p. 96). ; b y* ? 
{ This name must now be dropped for this species, having originated in a 
mistaken reference to the Linnean name for the species from Behring’s Island, 
described by Steller as Ursus marinus in 1751 (Linneus, Syst. Nat. ed. 1766, 
i. p. 55; Novy. Comment. Petropol. 1751, p. 331). 
