1883.] PROF. FLOWER ON THE DELPHINID.E. 467 



1. The magiiificpnt work of Van Beneden and Gervais '. This 

 professedly only treats of the osteology of the Cetacea, hut other 

 parts of the subject are necessarily included, if only incidentally. 

 Splendid and valuable as are the illustrations, and full as are the 

 descriptions of the skeletal characters, the zoological portion of the 

 work is by no means so thorough and exhaustive as might he wished. 

 Perhaps intentionally, owing to the difficulties of the subject, and 

 the still insufficient state of knowledge, there is a vagueness about 

 the classification and nomenclature used which is often disappointing 

 to those who hope to find an authoritative statement upon these 

 subjects from authors of such eminence. Owing to the lamented 

 death of Professor Gervais (who had undertaken the portion of the 

 work containing the Odontocetes) having occurred before his task 

 was completed, the group to which the present notes chiefly relate, 

 the true Dolphins, which occupies the last part of the work, is the 

 least satisfactory in its mode of treatment. 



2. The other work, which has exercised a still wider influence upon 

 tlie state of knowledge of the zoology of the Cetacea, is the Cata- 

 logue, with its Supplement, of the specimens in the British Museum 

 by the late Dr. J. E. Gray, based upon his famous memoir on the 

 Cetacea, comprised in the Zoology of the Yoyage of the ' Erebus ' 

 and ' Terror ' (1846), and on a series of memoirs which have appeared 

 at diiferent times in the Proceedings of this Society. Of Dr. Gray's 

 extraordinary energy in collecting specimens and in bringing together 

 from all available sources the references which make his works so 

 useful, and also of his acute perception of minute distinctions apt 

 to be overlooked by an ordinary observer, I cannot speak without 

 praise ; but unfortunately his tendency to multiply divisions and 

 impose names almost at random, his want of accuracy in description, 

 and his defective anatomical knowledge, are exhibited in his writings 

 on this group in their fullest development. Individual peculiarities, 

 or such as are the effects of immaturity (as in Benedenia, Mega- 

 neuron, &c.), or of accidental mutilation (Sp/tcerocephafus), or of 

 mistaken impressions gathered from imperfect photographic repre- 

 sentations (Macleai/ius), are made the foundations of generic distinc- 

 tions, which are maintained in successive catalogues and lists, not- 

 withstanding the exposure of the errors upon which they were based. 

 Specimens between which no one else finds an}' specific distinction 

 are placed in different genera, as Megaptera lonyimana and Poes- 

 copia lalandii, Sihbaldius borenlis and Eudolphius luliceps, Kogia 

 tnacleayi and Euphysetes grcnji, H'lperoodon butzkopf and Lageno- 

 cetus latifrons, Lencopleurvs arcticus and Electra acuta, and many 

 others. Even the same individual specimen occurs twice over in the 

 same list in two different genera, as in the case of Grampus affinis 

 and Globiocephalus affinis, both founded upon one skull in the 

 Museum of the College of Surgeons. 



' ' Osteograpliie des Cetac^s vivants et fossiles, comprenant la description et 

 I'icouograpbie du Squelette et du Svsteme deutaire de ees animaiix aiusi que 

 des documents relatil's a leur histoive naturelle,' par MM. Van Beueden et 

 Paul Gervais. 1 vol. quarto ; and Atlas of 64 plates, folio. Paris 1869-1880, 



