208 PROFESSOR FLOWER ON THE RECENT ZIPHLOID WHALES. 
6. A skeleton in the Museum at Gottenburg. From Gullmarsfjarden, on the Swedish 
coast, north of Gottenburg, 1867 (vide Malm, “ Hvaldjur i Sveriges Museer ar 1869.” 
Kong]. Svenska Vetenskaps Akademiens Handlingar, Band 2. no. 2. 1871). 
7. A skull in the Anatomical Museum, Edinburgh, obtained from Shetland, 1871. 
8. A skeleton in the Museum at Pisa from the Mediterranean. Professor Gervais 
has informed me of this specimen, which has not been described. 
9. In the Museum of the University of Louvain is a skull of an animal of this genus 
brought from the Cape of Good Hope, of which an excellent description has been 
published by Professor Van Beneden, under the name of Ziphius indicus (Mém. de 
lAcad. Roy. de Belgique, coll. in-8vo, tome xvi. 1863"). 
10. A very similar skull in the British Museum, also from the Cape of Good Hope, 
has been described by Gray (Proc. Zool. Soc, 1865, p. 524) under the name of Petro- 
rhynchus capensis ; and the same name is retained in the Suppl. Cat. Seals and Whales 
(1871), p. 98, although its specific identity with the last-named previously described 
specimen is admitted. It is further described by Owen (Crag Cetacea, Palzont. Soc. 
1870, p. 7). 
11. A complete specimen of a young male, 5:95 metres long, was taken near Buenos 
Ayres in 1865, and is the subject of an elaborate memoir by Burmeister (Anales del 
Museo publico de Buenos Aires, vol. i. p. 312, 1869), accompanied by detailed figures 
of external characters, skeleton, and some of the viscera. The specimen was first 
named in a preliminary notice (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 1866, xvii. p. 94) Ziphior- 
rhynchus cryptodon, but described subsequently as Epiodon australis. 
Until more abundant materials are obtained, and especially a complete knowledge of 
the external characters or entire skeleton of several individuals, it is impossible to deter- 
mine whether the differences that have been noticed in the above specimens are the 
results of age, sex, individual peculiarity, or whether they denote specific distinctions. 
For the present it may be advisable to admit Z. cavirostris (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7, and 8) 
and Z. indicus (Nos. 9 and 10) as species ; but with reference to No. 11, it is not impro- 
bable that it is the young of one of the others. It should be remarked that Fischer, 
after a careful comparison, arrives at the conclusion that No. 3 is specifically distinct 
from Z. cavirostris, although not agreeing with Duvernoy’s opinion that it should be 
placed in the genus //yperoodon. 
MesopLopon®, Gervais. 
Premaxille not greatly expanded and hollowed in front of the nares, rising suddenly 
* Figured in Van Beneden and Gervais’s ‘ Ostéographie des Cétacés,’ pl. 21. figs. 11-13. 
? Figured in Van Beneden and Gervais, op. cit. pl. 21. fig. 10. 
* There is much difficulty in determining the most appropriate name for this genus. The earliest known 
specimen was assigned by its discoverer Sowerby to Physeter, from which, however, it is clearly distinct. In the 
classification of the Dolphins furnished by De Blainville to Desmarest’s article “ Dauphin” in the ‘ Nouyeau 
