1881.] PROF. W. H. FLOWER ON THE ELEPHANT SEAL. 1.t9 



therefore, in all probability, a comparatively recent form, it must be 

 one of the most distant instead of nearest in true relationship, and all 

 its resemblances to the Cetacea must be purely analogical and adaptive 

 to existence under similar external conditions. 



Apart from these speculations, the facts which have been brought 

 forward will, I think, be sufficient to induce j)ractical zoologists to 

 revise their systematic classifications of the Pinnipeds, in which this 

 genus is almost invariably placed either in the middle of the group 

 or next to the Otariidse. I would suggest that it ought to be placed 

 as far as possible from the latter, the whole of the other Seals and 

 the Walrus coming between. After its most close ally, the Bladder- 

 nose {Cystophora crislata), the Leopard Seals of the southern 

 hemisphere { StenorhiinchincE) come nearest to it. 



Generic and Specific Designation. — Since the dismemberment of 

 the Linnean genus Phoca by Nilsson in 1820, the Elephant Seal has 

 been placed by various authors either in the genus Cystophora (Nils- 

 son, 1820), Macrorhinus (F. Cuv. 1824), ov Miruunya (Gray, 182/), 

 modified by its author in 1847 to Morunga. The latter, founded 

 upon a native Australian name mentioned by Peron, is clearly inad- 

 missible, being exactly synonymous with Macrorhinus, which ante- 

 dates it by three years, and which is now very generally used by the 

 best authorities'. 



The question between Cystophora a.r\d Macrorhinus depends upon 

 the varying estimate of the value to be assigned to a generic distinc- 

 tion. If the Bladdernose and the Elephant Seal are held to be 

 sufficiently distinct in tiieir organization to require separate generic 

 appellations, the one will be called Cystophora and the other Ma- 

 crorhinus. If otherwise, they will be both included under Cystophora, 

 the older and equally appropriate designation. The differences 

 between them have been carefully pointed out in Allen's recent 

 monograph, and chiefly consist in the comparatively larger size of 

 the crowns of the molar teeth, the frequent doubling of the root of 

 the posterior, and occasionally of the penultimate, upper molar in the 

 smaller species, combined with the greater prolongation of the palate 

 backwards, the presence of claws upon the hind limbs, the less emar- 

 gination of the distal border of the hind feet, the greater size of the 

 pelvis and posterior extremities generally (which, according to Allen, 

 are very feebly developed in the Elephant Seal), and the different form 

 of the nasal appendage of the adult males. Differences of the auditory 

 ossicles have also been pointed out by Mr. Doran. In all these 

 characters, it will be observed, the Elephant Seal has undergone a 

 further stage of specialization than the Bladdernose. 



It is a case in which, if they had never been separated, I, for 

 one, should have been inclined to allow them to remain in the 



' It should be mentioned that F. Ciivier, as was his custom, only used the • 

 French form " Macrorkine" in the article in the Mem. du Mus. 1824, xi. p. 200. 

 which gives some countenance to the citation of Ids first use of the genus Macro- 

 rhinus (as in Agassiz, ' Nonienclator Zoologicus ') in the ' Dictionnaire des 

 Sciences Naturelles,' sxxix. 1826, art. Phoqiie, and therefore to the priority of 

 Latreille's use of the same name in the Fam. Nat. du Regne Animal, 1825, for 

 a genus of Coleoptera. 



