392 PROF. FLOWER ON A NEW [May 2, 
and would be the means of obviating in future the confusion which 
at present prevails for want of it.” 
The following papers were read :— 
1. On the Cranium of a new Species of Hyperoodon from the 
Australian Seas. By Wittram Henry Frower, LL.D., 
F.R.S., P.Z.S., &e. 
[Received April 18, 1882.] 
Dr. Giinther has been so good as to submit to my examination 
the cranium of a Cetacean lately added to the British-Museum col- 
lection which presents sufficient interest to justify its being brought 
before the notice of this Society. The specimen was found upon the 
sea-beach of Lewis Island in Dampier Archipelago, North-western 
Australia. 
Unfortunately the cranium is in a greatly mutilated state, having 
evidently been rolled for a considerable period among pebbles and 
sand, from which cause many of its most important characters are 
destroyed. The lower jaw is wanting. The whole of the elongated 
narrow part of the rostrum is broken away. There is therefore 
nothing remaining to indicate the character of the dentition. Many 
prominent parts of the cranium, especially the supraorbital ridges, 
are worn down to such an extent that their contour is completely 
destroyed. This, as seen in figure 1 (p. 3933), is carried to a greater 
extent upon the right than the left side. ‘The slender jugal arches 
and the petrotympanic bones have disappeared. There is, however, 
enough remaining to show that it does not belong to any known 
species, and also to indicate, as far as they may be inferred from the 
cranium alone, its affinities. It should be premised that the animal 
to which it belonged was not very aged, as the sutures are mostly 
open; but there is no reason for supposing that it had not arrived at 
its full size. 
It is evidently one of the Ziphioids ; and as the characters of the 
four generic modifications of this group are plainly indicated in the 
conformation of the upper surface of the cranium (see ‘ Transactions 
of the Zoological Society,’ vol. viii. p. 203), which is here well pre- 
served, there is no difficulty in recognizing that it is neither a 
Berardius, nor a Ziphius, nor a Mesoplodon, but that it comes so near 
to Hyperoodon that it is only with animals of that genus that it will 
be necessary to compare it. 
An adult skull of the common specié’H. rostratus, in the 
British-Museum collection, which presents all the typical characters 
of its kind, will serve very well for the purpose. 
Although the proportions differ somewhat, in general size the two 
are nearly equal, the H.rostratus, on the whole, having the advantage. 
In the posterior or occipital aspect, the new cranium differs 
from that of H. rostratus in being narrower and somewhat higher, 
