1883.] 



PROF. FLOAVER ON THE DKLPHINID^.. 



483 



Mup^um d'Histoire Natnrelle,' t. xix. (1812), p. 10, where, though 

 no name^is given, it is stated that " il semble aussi que c'est I'espece 

 Icgerement indique par Shaw (Gen. Zool. vol. ii. pt. 2, p. ,514, 

 1801) sous le nom de Defij/iinus rostrotics" ^. In the ' Ossemens 

 fossiles,' 2nd edit. t. v. p. 278, 1823", these indications were more 

 Inlly developed, and a species, a "phantom" species as it after- 

 wards turned out, was described under the name of Delphi nusfron- 

 tafiis, based upon a stuffed sj)ecinien and certain skulls which Cuvier 

 supposed to belong to one and the same species. At p. 400 of the 

 same work an " addition importante'" appears, stating that Van Breda 



Fig. 6. Palate of Steno rostratus. 



had identified the skulls as belonging to a species quite distinct from 

 the stuffed specimen, for which alone in future Cuvier reserved the 

 name oi' front at us. This specimen afterwards proved to have been 

 previously described by Blaiuville as D. yeoffrensis (now Inia geof- 

 frensis), and the name frontatus therefore disappeared from the 

 list^ In the meantime the skulls in the Paris Museum, and another 

 of the same species observed by M. de Blainville in Sowerby's col- 

 lection in London, had been fully described, even to the " rugueuse 



1 In all probability the species now known as Platanista gangetica (Lebeck), 

 as subsequently conjectured by Cuvier. 



^ It may be convenient for tbose to whom the now scarce first edition of 

 this work is inaccessible, to know that it does not contain any account of the 

 Cetacea. 



^ Every one who has followed in Cuviers steps in endeavouring to identify 

 Dolphins by the old descriptions will echo the sentiment which his researches 

 into the synonymy of this species called forth -.—"foufes ces indications incow 

 fletea ne servcnt qu'a mettre les naturalistes a la torture." 



