No. 4. — Observations on the type specimen of the fossil cetacean 

 Anoplonassa forcipata Cope. By Frederick W. True. 



I have recently had an opportunity of examining the type of the re- 

 markable fossil cetacean Anoplonassa forcipata Cope, belonging to the 

 Museum of Comparative Zoology. This specimen, on which the species 

 was founded by Cope in 1869, 1 consists of the distal portion of a mandi- 

 ble, 191 mm. long. In the original description, Cope remarked that it 

 was obtained, with remains of Mastodon, " not far from Savannah, Geor- 

 gia." In 1890 he stated that it was from the " phosphatic deposits" of 

 South Carolina. 2 His origind description and figures are excellent, but 

 the copies of the latter, published on a reduced scale in 1890, do not rep- 

 resent the specimen accurately. Faithful copies were published in Van 

 Beneden and Gervais's Osteography of the Cetacea. 3 



Few cetologists have published any critical remarks on this interest- 

 ing species and probably fewer still have ever seen the type and only 

 known specimen. Cope, the original describer, was long in doubt as to 

 its affinities, and, indeed, seems never to have come to a conclusion re- 

 garding them. 



In 1869 he thought its relationships were with the "aberrant cetacea." 

 "The nearest types," he remarked, "appear to be on the one hand Si- 

 renia, and on the other, Squalodon." 4 In 1890 he actually placed it 

 among the Sirenia, in the family Halitheriidae, 5 but cautiously remarked, 

 " it is by no means certain that it belongs here, and it may be a Ceta- 

 cean." 



His remarks five years later (1895) indicate that he was then con- 

 vinced that it was a cetacean and that it might be more or less closely 

 related to the ziphioids. In describing his new genus Pelycorhamphus, 

 which he assigns to the Cboneziphiidae, he adds : 



1 Proe. Amer. Philos. Soc., 11, p. 189, Plate 5. 



2 Amer. Nat., 24, p. 700, Fig. 2. This apparent discrepancy may not be a real 

 one, as Savannah is very close to the boundary line of South Carolina. 



3 Osteographie des Cetaces, 1880, p. 386, text-fig. 



4 Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, 11, p. 189. 



5 Amer. Nat., 24, Plate 700, Fig. 2. 

 vol. li. — No. 4 7 



