98 bulletin: museum of comparative zoology. 



" It would not be surprising if this genus should prove to be related to Anoplo- 

 nassa Cope, which has the long symphysis mandibuli of the Physeter, with the 

 nearly edentulous character of the Choneziphiidae." x 



So far as I am aware, this is the final statement of Cope as regards Ano- 

 plonassa. The view that it was related to the ziphioid whales was not 

 original with him, having been definitely published in Van Beneden and. 

 Gervais's Osteography, the title-page of which bears the date of 1880. 

 On page 386 of that work, the authors remark : " We owe to Cope the 

 description of a fossil fragment of a mandible of slender and elongated 

 form, which comprises the greater part of the mandibular symphysis 

 of a cetacean, without doubt related to {poisin de) Hyper vodon and 

 Zipliiuz." 2 



It is to be noted that Leidy in 1869 assigned Anoplonassa to the Del- 

 phinidae, but with the statement that be accepted most of the fossil 

 cetacean species on the authority of Cope, as he had neither time nor 

 opportunity to examine the material on which they were based. 3 Leidy 

 was probably influenced in this case by the view Cope held at the time, 

 that Anoplonassa belonged to the " aberrant cetacea." Leidy's Delphi- 

 nidae comprised all the Odontoceti, except Squalodon and its allies. 



Brandt merely adopted the genus from Leidy, under the general head- 

 ing of fossil delphinoids of North America. 4 Zittel merely cites the 

 genus among the Ziphiinae, 5 being doubtless influenced by the opinion 

 of Van Beneden and Gervais. 



An examination of the type of Anoplonassa, and comparison of it 

 with specimens of recent ziphioids in the National Museum, leave not 

 the slightest doubt in my mind that it belongs to that group of ceta- 

 ceans. It represents, however, a distinct section of the group. All re- 

 cent ziphioids have the symphysis of the mandible comparatively short 

 and the rami deep and compressed, while Anoplonassa has a very long 

 symphysis, and it is highly probable that the rami were slender and 

 rounded, somewhat as in Platanista. Although the ziphioids generally 

 have a cranium with a long rostrum, externally the snout is quite short. 

 In Anoplonassa, the snout was doubtless elongated, as in such forms as 

 Platanista and Stenodelphis. 



1 Proc. Amer. Philos, Soc, 34, p. 138. 



2 Ostcographie des Cetaces, 1880, p. 386. 



3 Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., 1869, p. 43G. 



* Mem. Acad. St. Petersburg 1873 (7), 20, p. 289. 



5 Handbucli der Paliiontologie, 1893, 4, Vertebrata, p. 179. 



