1883.] PROF. FLOWER ON THE DELPHINID.E. 467 



1. The magnificent work of Van Beneden and Gervais *. This 

 professedly only treats of the osteology of the Cetacea, but other 

 parts of the subject are necessarily included, if only incidentally. 

 Splendid and valuable as are the illustrations, and full as are the 

 descriptions of the skeletal characters, the zoological portion of the 

 work is by no means so thorough and exhaustive as might be wished. 

 Perhaps intentionally, owing to the difficulties of the sul)ject, and 

 the still insufficient state of knowledge, there is a vagueness about 

 the classification and nomenclature used which is often disappointing 

 to those who hope to find an authoritative statement upon these 

 subjects from authors of such eminence. Owing to the lamented 

 death of Professor Gervais (who had undertaken the portion of the 

 work containing the Odontocetes) having occurred before his task 

 was completed, the group to which the present notes chiefly relate, 

 the true Dolphins, which occupies the last part of the work, is the 

 least satisfactory in its mode of treatment. 



2. The other work, which has exercised a still wider influence upon 

 the state of knowledge of the zoology of the Cetacea, is the Cata- 

 logue, with its Supplement, of the specimens in the British Museum 

 by the late Dr. J. E. Gray, based upon his famous memoir on the 

 Cetacea, comprised in the Zoology of the Voyage of the ' Erebus ' 

 and ' Terror ' (1846), and on a series of memoirs which have appeared 

 at different times in the Proceedings of this Society. Of Dr. Gray's 

 extraordinary energy in collecting specimens and in bringing together 

 from all available sources the references which make his works so 

 useful, and also of his acute perception of minute distinctions apt 

 to be overlooked by an ordinary observer, I cannot speak without 

 praise ; but unfortunately his tendency to multiply divisions and 

 impose names almost at random, his want of accuracj'in description, 

 and his defective anatomical knowledge, are exhibited in his writings 

 on this group in their fullest development. Individual peculiarities, 

 or such as are the effects of immaturity (as in Benedenia, Mega- 

 neuron, &c.), or of accidental mutilation (Sphesrocephalus), or of 

 mistaken impressions gathered from imperfect photographic repre- 

 sentations {Madeayius), are made the foundations of generic distinc- 

 tions, which are maintained in successive catalogues and lists, not- 

 withstanding the exposure of the errors upon which they were based. 

 Specimens between which no one else finds anj' specific distinction 

 are placed in different genera, as Megaptera lonyimana and Poes- 

 copia lalamJii, Sihbaldins lorealis and Rudolphins laliceps, Kogia 

 macleayi and Euphysetes grayi, Hyperoodon butzkopf and Lageno- 

 cetus latifrons, Leucopleurus arcticus and Electro acuta, and many 

 others. Even the same individual specimen occurs twice over in the 

 same list in two different genera, as in the case of Grampus affinis 

 and GlobiocpphaJus nffiiiis, both founded upon one skull in the 

 Museum of the College of Surgeons. 



' ' Osteographie des Cetac^s vivants et fossiles, comprenant la description et 

 ricouograpliie du Squelette et du Systeme dentaire de ces animaux aiusi que 

 des documents relatils a leur histoire naturelle,' par ]MM. Van Benedeu et 

 Paul Gervais. 1 vol. quarto ; and Atlas of C4 plates, folio. Paris 1869-1880. 



